A Heinlein Anecdote
Gary Farber
This from a note to the Timebinders mailing list for RIchard Lynch's work
on an Outline of 1960's fanhistory. I thought I'd give it double-duty.
Waste not, want not. Those interested in Timebinders, which does *not*
discuss Robert Heinlein, but matters of fanhistory, and projects to
preserve it, may write: timebinde...@smith.chi.il.us
The keepers of the list, Dick Smith and Leah Zeldes Smith are away for the
week, however.
- HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION
> Alexei Panshin's detailed dissection of the novels of Robert A.
Heinlein
> published (when?)
> Heinlein hated it (quote available?)
> (fan reactions?)
There's a lot one could say about this controversy, but much of it is
more appropropriate to a book on Heinlein. But among other issues,
Heinlein was enraged over an issue having to do with letters to a
friend of his. I can't give you the gospel version, so don't take this
as such: this is a hazy recollection: I *think* a widow of Heinlein's
friend sent Panshin a bunch of letters Heinlein had written her dead
husband. Panshin read them, found them only relating to Heinlein's
personal life, and returned them. Heinlein was given the idea that
Panshin had intruded into his personal life and he found this
unforgiveable.
I was one of the few eye-witnesses to their only meeting after this, in
1973, when Heinlein spoke at the 92nd St.Y in NYC. After his talk,
Heinlein sat at a small table in the lobby and signed autographs. Panshin
walked up and stuck out his hand, beginning an apology to Heinlein.
Heinlein wouldn't let him complete his first sentence, interrupting him
with the coldest "Good day, Sir!" and refusing to take his hand. Panshin
tried several times, but just got his words interrupted with "Good day,
Sir!"
After several attempts, and Heinlein's utter refusal to even listen to a
single sentence of an apology (which Alexei Panshin was clearly trying to
do, managing to get out a few bits), Alexei gave up: it was his only
possible choice.
I was still neo enough in 1973, lord, a mere 23 years ago, to write up a
brief semi-coherent version of this for Dick Geis, with whom I'd been
corresponding in my young, neoish way (I was 13), and -- here's the
idiotic part -- I was so naive and neoish, I didn't think Geis would print
what I wrote in THE ALIEN CRITIC (the once and future SFR). I thought it
was just private gossip. After all, who would care what little me said?
Who would publish me in this Mighty and Important zine?
Nitwit. As if any gossp about *Robert Heinlein* wouldn't be printed. So
Geis printed my incoherent version, which gave Alexei Panshin the
impression I was sucking up to Heinlein, and he gave me the back of his
hand, figuratively speaking. At the age of 13, I was distraught. I
survived. I learned.
Heinlein never forgave Panshin. It never seemed at all fair, as I
understood the situation.
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
JOHN BOSTON
read many years ago, the letters in question were to Sgt. Arthur George
Smith, to whom STARSHIP TROOPERS was dedicated.
John Boston
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
: This from a note to the Timebinders mailing list for RIchard Lynch's work
: on an Outline of 1960's fanhistory. I thought I'd give it double-duty.
: > - HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION
: > Alexei Panshin's detailed dissection of the novels of Robert A. Heinlein
First published by Advent in 1968.
[Gary's account of the events of 1973 snipped]
Sigh. Humans, what do you expect? :( However, it's fairly well known that
it is advisable to *mail* all and any serious apologies. That way you (a)
prevent potential misunderstandings often caused by anxiety attacks and
suchlike, (b) protect yourself by retaining a copy of what you wrote, and
(c) avoid scenes like the one just described. Hopefully, somebody will
learn from this unfortunate incident.
--
Ahasuerus http://www.clark.net/pub/ahasuer/, including:
FAQs: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.fan.heinlein, alt.pulp, the Liaden Universe
Biblios: how to write SF, the Wandering Jew, miscellaneous SF
Please consider posting (as opposed to e-mailing) ID requests
Ben Yalow
>I was one of the few eye-witnesses to their only meeting after this, in
>1973, when Heinlein spoke at the 92nd St.Y in NYC. After his talk,
>Heinlein sat at a small table in the lobby and signed autographs. Panshin
>walked up and stuck out his hand, beginning an apology to Heinlein.
>Heinlein wouldn't let him complete his first sentence, interrupting him
>with the coldest "Good day, Sir!" and refusing to take his hand. Panshin
>tried several times, but just got his words interrupted with "Good day,
>Sir!"
As another eyewitness, Gary description is pretty accurate.
I was still pretty much a neo then; I'd only been in fandom a few years
when I saw it, and didn't have the background until later (although I had
read the Panshin).
I have never before or since seen someone as icily cold, and utterly
polite, as Heinlein at that encounter. It was *very* clear that he felt
that he was the victim of an unforgiveable sin. But, at the same time,
it was clear that he felt that he was a *gentleman*, and would not be other
than polite. (Or call for his seconds, if it were permitted.)
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Gary Farber
: [Gary's account of the events of 1973 snipped]
: Sigh. Humans, what do you expect? :( However, it's fairly well known that
: it is advisable to *mail* all and any serious apologies. That way you (a)
: prevent potential misunderstandings often caused by anxiety attacks and
: suchlike, (b) protect yourself by retaining a copy of what you wrote, and
: (c) avoid scenes like the one just described. Hopefully, somebody will
: learn from this unfortunate incident.
I don't know this for a fact, and could have it either completely wrong,
or just garbled, but I believe I recall hearing, or reading, that Panshin
had written such apologies several times, but they were either returned
unopened, or otherwise disregarded.
My understanding is that Alexei Panshin made every effort short of
parachuting onto the Heinlein grounds. Again, I could have an
exaggerated sense of this.
I'm certainly not trying to hold Panshin up as a saint to Heinlein's
demon. Panshin's views on Heinlein are most arguable, and fault can be
found with them. Heinlein's views on his privacy are well known (or they
were). But he was, among many other things, what I might loosely call "a
touchy guy." I am fairly sure that Panshin had tremendous love for
Heinlein's work, and no desire whatever to offend him.
This is why it strikes me as rather sad.
Oh, well.
--
Graydon
: I'm certainly not trying to hold Panshin up as a saint to Heinlein's
: demon. Panshin's views on Heinlein are most arguable, and fault can be
: found with them. Heinlein's views on his privacy are well known (or they
: were). But he was, among many other things, what I might loosely call "a
: touchy guy." I am fairly sure that Panshin had tremendous love for
: Heinlein's work, and no desire whatever to offend him.
: This is why it strikes me as rather sad.
Whyever would you expect that there _is_ an adequate apology for reading
somene else's private correspondence without the explicit permission of
all the parties involved? At least in Heinlein's universe, which Panshin
is in a terrible moral position to claim this much ignorance of.
I'm not a particularly touchy person, but I would be hard pressed to think
of a sufficent apology; to borrow a term from Tepper, such a person has
just demonstrated themselves quite conclusively to be without bao. 'If
you can't kill them, don't interact with them at all' is an _excellent_
rule in such cases.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Rick Cook
>Heinlein never forgave Panshin. It never seemed at all fair, as I
>understood the situation.
>
much a reflection of the culture that reared him. That included certain
notions about what you did and did not do. If you transgressed on those
notions you were beyond the pale.
It was part of being a gentleman.
There's also the fact that anything Heinlein said to Panshin was probably
going to find its way into print in one form or another, possibly in an
additional work on Heinlein.
--RC
Gary Farber
: As I recall Panshin's own account of this incident, which I obviously
: read many years ago, the letters in question were to Sgt. Arthur George
: Smith, to whom STARSHIP TROOPERS was dedicated.
So I was reminded by Tom Perry. Correct.
Avram Grumer
> From Heinlein's point of view it was perfectly fair. Heinlein was very
> much a reflection of the culture that reared him. That included certain
> notions about what you did and did not do. If you transgressed on those
> notions you were beyond the pale.
Is this the same Robert Heinlein who opened _Glory Road_ with a quote from
Shaw's _Caesar and Cleopatra_, defining a barbarian as one who "thinks
that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature"?
--
Avram Grumer | If music be the food of love,
av...@interport.net | then some of it be the twinkies
http://www.users.interport.net/~avram | of dysfunctional relationships.
Gary Farber
St. YMHA in 1973.
Tom Perry asked me to post this for him, as he's feeling a bit under the
weather at the moment. The following is *his* writing, excerpted from
some letters to the Timebinders e-mailing list.
TOM PERRY SAID:
> - HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION
> > Alexei Panshin's detailed dissection of the novels of Robert A. Heinlein
> > published (when?)
> > Heinlein hated it (quote available?)
> > (fan reactions?)
The book was supposed to be published in 1965 or '66, I believe.
Reportedly, Heinlein threatened Advent with a lawsuit if they published
it. Advent then backed off on publishing it, and the editor of a fanzine
named RIVERSIDE QUARTERLY [Leland Sapiro - gf] offered to serve as a test
case; he published a number of chapters of the book, and no legal action
was taken. Advent published the book in <pause to reach over to bookcase>
...in 1968.
Panshin had earlier published an article in a fanzine edited by Redd
Boggs (the LASFS's SHANGRI-L'AFFAIRES, I believe) that reportedly
first triggered Heinlein's anger. It concerned sexuality in Heinlein's
fiction, and came to the conclusion that Heinlein had trouble facing
up to adult sexuality. Boggs is supposed to be responsible for the
title, which was "By His Jockstrap" (mocking Heinlein's "By His
Bootstraps").
Panshin also acquired letters written by Heinlein to an ultraconservative
fan called "Sarge" Smith, who had been a machine-gunner in the Spanish-
American War. I believe his full name was Arthur George Smith, and
that he is the person to whom STARSHIP TROOPERS is dedicated. Panshin
says that (1) he wrote to Sarge Smith, as he did to many others who knew
Heinlein, asking for information; (2) his letter arrived shortly after
Smith's death, and (3) his widow wrote back offering Panshin the letters
that Heinlein had sent Smith. Panshin's account was reportedly disputed
by Mrs. Smith and by Heinlein. But Panshin did see the letters.
Heinlein's threat to sue Advent was (again, reportedly) based on the
fact that Panshin had seen these letters and might use quotes or information
from them. Panshin said he found nothing of interest in the letters and
returned them to Mrs. Smith. As noted above, there was apparently no
lawsuit.
Panshin's account of this can be found in Ed Meskys's fanzine NIEKAS,
issue #35, dated 1987; his article is entitled "Heinlein, Moskowitz and Me."
That article embodies one printed in the midsixties in the Coulsons'
fanzine YANDRO - the original article by which the controversy became
known to fandom. It will tell you lots more. So would Panshin, I
expect.
Pinning down Heinlein's part of it may be harder. The letter or letters
to Advent threatening legal action do not appear in GRUMBLES FROM THE
GRAVE, the posthumous book of the author's letters edited by his widow,
nor do any other letters on the subject. In 1990, a researcher at the
Heinlein archives at the University of California at Santa Cruz asked to
see letters about Panshin or his books and was told such files could be
seen only with Mrs. Heinlein's specific permission.
To relate this back to Heinlein's work, Panshin believes (with good reason,
I think) that he is the unforgiven critic mentioned in the last chapter of THE
NUMBER OF THE BEAST, and he wrote something in response in SF IN DIMENSION.
<snip>
I have seen somewhere a version of this Heinlein-Panshin meeting
that said Heinlein had warning that Panshin would come and try
to shake his hand. (The cur!) Part of the warning was a
description of Panshin, since Heinlein otherwise would not have
known him.
[I have a vague memory of having read this somewhere myself, later, but
can't vouch for it.--gf]
Panshin seemed to feel at that time that Heinlein had simply
been misinformed about the contents of his book - that if only
he knew that Panshin was for the most part a great admirer of
Heinlein's, he would act differently. Heinlein, for his part,
has been described as very hostile toward criticism of any kind.
Not surprisingly, Panshin has changed; his views on Heinlein are
now quite negative, I believe.
<snapped>
One thing you might want to add (or to know yourself): A picture
of Sarge Smith appears, without identication, in GRUMBLES FROM
THE GRAVE. In the photo on page 85, he's the bearded fellow
holding Heinlein's Hugo.
Bob Webber
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca writes:
>Whyever would you expect that there _is_ an adequate apology for reading
>somene else's private correspondence without the explicit permission of
>all the parties involved? At least in Heinlein's universe, which Panshin
>is in a terrible moral position to claim this much ignorance of.
Yes, but please note that neither Panshin nor Heinlein was living in
Heinlein's
universe: both were living in the same squalid space-time continuum as the
rest of us. As Gary noted, it is sad that Heinlein wouldn't be approached
for an apology and possible reconciliation.
>I'm not a particularly touchy person, but I would be hard pressed to think
>of a sufficent apology; to borrow a term from Tepper, such a person has
>just demonstrated themselves quite conclusively to be without bao. 'If
>you can't kill them, don't interact with them at all' is an _excellent_
>rule in such cases.
In response to your first comment (in my best Hope Leibowitz voice),
"Matthew
B. Tepper said that!?" Regarding your second comment, you appear to
believe
that killing people is better than ignoring them when they are "without
bao."
It always saddens me when people take such positions while arguing in
favour
of Heinlein, like the guy at Minicon who was zapping at everybody he
thought
didn't like Heinlein with a toy gun at a panel discussion. As pointed out
by Avram Grumer in another part of this thread, this is the same Heinlein
who referred to people who think that the laws of their tribe are the laws
of the universe as barbarians (through a character's mouth) and (in
"Coventry"?)
had a character state that she couldn't be insulted because the truth was
not insulting, lies were laughable.
How could Heinlein have thought that Panshin had demonstrated anything
"quite
conclusively" without talking to him in person? Why should he want to
kill
someone based on the reports of third parties? When I run across this
kind
of statement, I wonder how long the person making it would last in the
company
of _tMiaHM_ Loonies before being shown to an airlock.
Graydon
: In article <4bldvr$i...@knot.queensu.ca> Graydon,
: saun...@qlink.queensu.ca writes:
: >Whyever would you expect that there _is_ an adequate apology for reading
: >somene else's private correspondence without the explicit permission of
: >all the parties involved? At least in Heinlein's universe, which Panshin
: >is in a terrible moral position to claim this much ignorance of.
: Yes, but please note that neither Panshin nor Heinlein was living in
: Heinlein's
: universe: both were living in the same squalid space-time continuum as the
: rest of us. As Gary noted, it is sad that Heinlein wouldn't be approached
: for an apology and possible reconciliation.
Everybody lives in the reality their mind creates (hopefully on the basis
of sensor input most of the time); I can't *imagine* reading Heinlein's
novels and expecting him *not* to go utterly ballistic over reading his
mail without permission. I really can't.
: >I'm not a particularly touchy person, but I would be hard pressed to think
: >of a sufficent apology; to borrow a term from Tepper, such a person has
: >just demonstrated themselves quite conclusively to be without bao. 'If
: >you can't kill them, don't interact with them at all' is an _excellent_
: >rule in such cases.
: In response to your first comment (in my best Hope Leibowitz voice),
: "Matthew
: B. Tepper said that!?" Regarding your second comment, you appear to
: believe
: that killing people is better than ignoring them when they are "without
: bao."
Sherri S. Tepper said that. (If you want the background, you want the
last Jinian book - :Jinian Star-eye: I think.)
And yeah, someone without bao is unable to live in society; either get
them into a different society (which is what ignoring them constitutes a
little of, by refusing them *your* society), or kill them. No really
obvious third option for a person of adult years; conversion experiences
of the neccessary magnitude are very, very rare.
: How could Heinlein have thought that Panshin had demonstrated anything
: "quite
: conclusively" without talking to him in person?
Something to do with actions speaking louder than words, and being held
accountable for one's deeds, I expect.
: Why should he want to kill
: someone based on the reports of third parties? When I run across this
: kind
: of statement, I wonder how long the person making it would last in the
: company
: of _tMiaHM_ Loonies before being shown to an airlock.
I didn't say Robert Heinlein wanted to kill anybody; I was speaking for
myself there. If someone were to read my private correspondence to
someone without my permission, I would be most unlikely to speak to them
ever again, and I would certainly at least consider killing them. (There
area lot of good reasons not to, of course, but there can come times when
those reasons ring rather hollow.)
And if you don't think the Loonies had unbreachable social conventions,
you didn't read the book very carefully. Whether or not I'd be able to
deduce what those conventions were in sufficent time is something of a
moot point.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Graydon <saun...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
>If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>someone without my permission, I would be most unlikely to speak to them
>ever again, and I would certainly at least consider killing them. (There
>area lot of good reasons not to, of course, but there can come times when
>those reasons ring rather hollow.)
Sorry, Graydon, but when you send something to someone else, you place
your trust in the person you sent the mail to, not in any third party.
To my mind, blaming a third party for the actions of a second is much
more reprehensible than virtually any possible action the third party
could take.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het nipple boy
Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 6 days and counting
Ben Friedlander
>Whyever would you expect that there _is_ an adequate apology for reading
>somene else's private correspondence without the explicit permission of
>all the parties involved? At least in Heinlein's universe, which Panshin
>is in a terrible moral position to claim this much ignorance of.
Writers sell their manuscripts and correspondence to university archives all
the time, and rarely take the trouble to tell their correspondents that they
have. A poet I vaguely knew sold her archives to U.C. San Diego some years
back, and included in the files love letters from another poet, one I knew
a little better. I was visiting the university so I spent a few hours looking
at her papers. When I came across the love letters and realized what they were,
I put them aside in embarrassment (notwithstanding a reasonable amount of
curiosity!). Told my friend that his love letters were open to the public when
next I saw him, expressing surprise that they'd not been sealed. He was aghast.
And since then I've learned this is more common than uncommon.
Panshin as researcher ought to have a cleaner conscience than the recipent of
those letters, who allowed them to be seen. Unless Panshin actively sought
access. But of course, that was an earlier, perhaps more private era.
Ben F.
Seth Breidbart
> I can't *imagine* reading Heinlein's
>novels and expecting him *not* to go utterly ballistic over reading his
>mail without permission. I really can't.
This is the same Heinlein who wouldn't guarantee that a horse had a
leg at each corner, expecting that words wouldn't be read? That's
hard to believe.
Seth
Cecil Rose
>In article <4ble81$5...@news2.delphi.com>, rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
>> From Heinlein's point of view it was perfectly fair. Heinlein was very
>> much a reflection of the culture that reared him. That included certain
>> notions about what you did and did not do. If you transgressed on those
>> notions you were beyond the pale.
>Is this the same Robert Heinlein who opened _Glory Road_ with a quote from
>Shaw's _Caesar and Cleopatra_, defining a barbarian as one who "thinks
>that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature"?
Why should realizing that the customs of one's particular society are
not universal make one any less observant of those customs? After
all, it is the society you live in. And those customs exist because
the fulfill a need.
Cecil Rose
ala...@earthlink.net
Carson, California
Steve Simmons
>Whyever would you expect that there _is_ an adequate apology for reading
>somene else's private correspondence without the explicit permission of
>all the parties involved? At least in Heinlein's universe, which Panshin
>is in a terrible moral position to claim this much ignorance of.
This misunderstands the issue of an apology. If both Panshin and Heinlein
felt that what Panshin did was wrong, then an apology was the correct
response. If Heinlein felt the offense was unforegivable, then refusing
the apology was the right thing to do. The actions of both parties makes
sense to me.
KFackler
(Graydon) writes:
>Whyever would you expect that there _is_ an adequate apology for reading
>somene else's private correspondence without the explicit permission of
>all the parties involved? At least in Heinlein's universe, which Panshin
>is in a terrible moral position to claim this much ignorance of.
This is especially interesting in the light of a viewpoint taken by Col.
Campbell
in tMiaHM, i.e., that an appropriate way to deal with rudeness is by
killing the
offender. Maybe Panshin should have counted himself fortunate. I bet RAH
was
a great shot!
WAYNE JOHNSON
>
>In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
(Graydon) writes:
>
>>If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>>killing them.
>
>What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to
>say things like this?
Interesting observation...perhaps it's the unabashed conservatism of
Heinlein. No other author, I believe, would consider the murder of a
person at his dinner table in a restaurant as simply an unforgivable
breach of manners; yet in The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, this is how
Colin Campbell saw it - and made it appear to be the most important
aspect of the incident.
It's the conservatism of feudal lords, concerned more with appearance
than actual need. Heinlein's outrage reminds me of the quote
attributed to Henry Stimson, who refused to aggressively use
intelligence information about Japanese diplomatic activity before WWII
on the grounds that "gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
The charm of such a quirky world view seems to rub off on Heinlein's
fans.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Stevens R. Miller
>If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider killing
>them.
What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to say
things like this?
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
David G. Bell
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca "Graydon" writes:
> Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
> : I'm certainly not trying to hold Panshin up as a saint to Heinlein's
> : demon. Panshin's views on Heinlein are most arguable, and fault can be
> : found with them. Heinlein's views on his privacy are well known (or they
> : were). But he was, among many other things, what I might loosely call "a
> : touchy guy." I am fairly sure that Panshin had tremendous love for
> : Heinlein's work, and no desire whatever to offend him.
>
> : This is why it strikes me as rather sad.
>
> Whyever would you expect that there _is_ an adequate apology for reading
> somene else's private correspondence without the explicit permission of
> all the parties involved? At least in Heinlein's universe, which Panshin
> is in a terrible moral position to claim this much ignorance of.
>
> I'm not a particularly touchy person, but I would be hard pressed to think
> of a sufficent apology; to borrow a term from Tepper, such a person has
> just demonstrated themselves quite conclusively to be without bao. 'If
> you can't kill them, don't interact with them at all' is an _excellent_
> rule in such cases.
The trouble is that Heinlein, from the accounts given, seems to have
jumped to a conclusion. And it isn't as if Panshin had been digging
into something totally private -- there was a public dedication of a
book to Sgt. Smith. So we have a situation where there is a clear
possibility that something in the relationship was important to the
book, and Panshin, as a critic, trying to track this down.
And, arguably, the widow, as much as Panshin, making a dreadful mistake.
We don't know what was in the letters Panshin wrote, that Heinlein
apparently returned unopened. More important, Heinlein cannot have
known what was in an unopened letter. And even a short written
response, nothing more than "I cannot forgive what you did, and do not
wish to have any further contact with you," could have kept the whole
sad business private. Even if Panshin had later reported that, would it
have been any worse than what did happen?
Yet I have the niggling doubt that, just as Heinlein apparently made his
judgement based on hearing only one side of the story, we are not
hearing his side. We cannot. Were these letters the only such case?
Did Panshin really have all his letters returned unopened? All we
really know for sure was that Heinlein refused to speak to Panshin. We
think we know why, and that reason is consistent with what else is known
of Heinlein, but what are we missing? In these circumstances, can we
trust Panshin's account?
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Never criticise a farmer with your mouth full.
Graydon
: In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes:
: >If someone were to read my private correspondence to
: >someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider killing
: >them.
: What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to say
: things like this?
On the planet I'm from, _everybody_ is like this. Has nothing to do with
reading Heinlein.
Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Ben Friedlander <v080...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
>Writers sell their manuscripts and correspondence to university archives all
>the time, and rarely take the trouble to tell their correspondents that they
>have. A poet I vaguely knew sold her archives to U.C. San Diego some years
>back, and included in the files love letters from another poet, one I knew
>a little better. I was visiting the university so I spent a few hours looking
>at her papers. When I came across the love letters and realized what they were,
>I put them aside in embarrassment (notwithstanding a reasonable amount of
>curiosity!). Told my friend that his love letters were open to the public when
>next I saw him, expressing surprise that they'd not been sealed. He was aghast.
>And since then I've learned this is more common than uncommon.
Side note on copyright: the possessor of a letter has the right to do
with it what zie will; however, the copyright still vests with the
author, and if someone other than the author publishes the letter, zie
can be sued.
Stevens R. Miller
>Stevens R. Miller writes:
>>(Graydon) writes:
>>>If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>>>someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider
>>>killing them.
>>What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to
>>say things like this?
>Heinlein's outrage reminds me of the quote
>attributed to Henry Stimson, who refused to aggressively use
>intelligence information about Japanese diplomatic activity before WWII
>on the grounds that "gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
>The charm of such a quirky world view seems to rub off on Heinlein's
>fans.
Yeah, that's as good a guess as any I've heard. It's a striking mix of
reserve and aggression that has more than mere shock value. One can imagine
being the life of the party for fifteen minutes by making remarks of this
kind, particularly if one is well dressed and holding a glass of Chivas.
The contrast between the appearance of sophistication and the claim of brutal
justice always gets an audience (for a short while). (Wonder what Stimson
would have said to the mothers of soldiers killed by his manners, though.)
In the vast majority of cases, the person who makes silly claims like this
will never be given the chance to act on them. That makes them cheap and easy
to say. I hear it all the time in my law practice (i.e., "if the courts can't
give me justice, I'll get it myself" <pats hip where imaginary gun keeps
speaker warm>). It's all bluster, of course. Even in Heinlein's case, he
seems to have been more talk than do, on the killing front (which, of course,
is to his credit). As Gary Farber has relayed, Heinlein threatened more suits
than he appears ever to have brought (and what an interesting sidebar that is,
given the CW that RAH detested legal process). I doubt that a man who would
refrain from suing over letters would ever actually resort to murder in the
same case.
Now, of course, the legions of wannabe Heinleiners will come forth to argue
that murdering the reader of your letter is somehow more noble or gentlemanly
or sensible than serving him with a summons and complaint. In advance, I will
ask them why their mentor never actually seems to have followed this rule.
David E Romm
(Graydon) wrote:
> Stevens R. Miller (l...@interport.net) wrote:
> : In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
(Graydon) writes:
> : >If someone were to read my private correspondence to
> : >someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider
killing
> : >them.
>
> : What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to say
> : things like this?
>
> On the planet I'm from, _everybody_ is like this. Has nothing to do with
> reading Heinlein.
>
> Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
> rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
> social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
You live on a different planet than most. Sorry, but reading
correspondence is simply not a killing offense, except to those car bomb
conservatives who don't allow any gray areas at all.
The main problem here is that Heinlein was wrong. Panshin, writing a
biography/critical work, is going to see various things Heinlein wrote
that Heinlein might not want to see print. And Panshin didn't print
them. By the descriptions here, Panshin behaved honorably and Heinlein
behaved like a six year old throwing a tantrum.
As Ahasueros noted, this minor peccadillo doesn't deminish Heinlein's
accomplishments. The unflattering incident shapes our view of Heinlein
the man, not necessarily Heinlein the writer.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
FAQ, Distribution Tapes, Top 11 Lists, scripts, sound files, more
Rick Cook
>In article <4ble81$5...@news2.delphi.com>, rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
>
>> From Heinlein's point of view it was perfectly fair. Heinlein was very
>> much a reflection of the culture that reared him. That included certain
>> notions about what you did and did not do. If you transgressed on those
>> notions you were beyond the pale.
>
>Is this the same Robert Heinlein who opened _Glory Road_ with a quote from
>Shaw's _Caesar and Cleopatra_, defining a barbarian as one who "thinks
>that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature"?
>
Heinlein would NOT have claimed that his way was the only way. What we
would say is that it was HIS way. Want to interact with him? Play by his
rules. Choose not to and no general moral odium attaches. He just won't
interact with you.
There is a difference between recognizing that there are many possible
codes of behavior, each perhaps equally effective, and not having a code of
behavior of one's own.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Yes, but please note that neither Panshin nor Heinlein was living in
>Heinlein's universe: both were living in the same squalid space-time
continuum >as the rest of us. As Gary noted, it is sad that Heinlein
wouldn't be approached
>for an apology and possible reconciliation.
>
there was no excuse for what Panshin had done. Ergo, Heinlein didn't want
anything to do with him.
Personally I don't see this as sad at all.
--RC
Graydon
: In article <4bp2l6$o...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
: (Graydon) wrote:
: > On the planet I'm from, _everybody_ is like this. Has nothing to do with
: >
: > Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
: > rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
: > social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
: You live on a different planet than most.
No shit.
: Sorry, but reading
: correspondence is simply not a killing offense, except to those car bomb
: conservatives who don't allow any gray areas at all.
Piffle.
If you make the argument that correspondence is fair game (which it is
not, in law, wrt publication; Salinger got that one demonstrated pretty
solidly), you've asserted that society has no proper respect for a fairly
large are of personal privacy.
There are violations of privacy sufficently consequential to merit lethal
responses; they're very rare and somewhat pathological cases, but they
exist. (Making public something that the principals have privately dealt
with that will require the principals to resolve publicly to their great
detriment, for sufficently large values of 'detriment', for instance.)
: The main problem here is that Heinlein was wrong. Panshin, writing a
: biography/critical work, is going to see various things Heinlein wrote
: that Heinlein might not want to see print. And Panshin didn't print
: them. By the descriptions here, Panshin behaved honorably and Heinlein
: behaved like a six year old throwing a tantrum.
You're presuming that claiming the status of critic or biographer
entitles you to violate someone's privacy. This is not the only
reasonable view on the matter.
Barry DeCicco
|> Stevens R. Miller (l...@interport.net) wrote:
|> : In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes:
|> : >If someone were to read my private correspondence to
|> : >someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider killing
|> : >them.
|>
|> : What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to say
|> : things like this?
|>
|> reading Heinlein.
|>
|> Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
|> rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
|> social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
|>
|> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
I suggest that you get some help, or go back to the planet which you
cam from. In SOME societies, people are not to quick to go off
killing others, or even to publicly state that they are 'considering' doing
so.
Barry
Bob Webber
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca writes:
>And if you don't think the Loonies had unbreachable social conventions,
>you didn't read the book very carefully. Whether or not I'd be able to
>deduce what those conventions were in sufficent time is something of a
>moot point.
The Loonies also used judges, not involved in the affair in question,
to decide whether or not to kill someone. I don't recall that the
society in question was described as having strong correspondence
privacy conventions. My reading of the novel is that they would
have had a strong convention guarding against private killings
for motives which had not been revealed and adequately examined.
Shooting somebody down, without even knowing for sure what he
looked like, the first time you met him, based on your suspicion
that he had read your correspondence with somebody else (which
he claimed he was permitted to read)... Do the YMHAs on the
Moon have airlocks? I bet they have qualified judges and socially
concerned citizens with guns.
Bob
Bob Webber
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca writes:
>Stevens R. Miller (l...@interport.net) wrote:
>: In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes:
>: >If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>: >someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider killing
>: >them.
>
>: What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to say
>: things like this?
>
>On the planet I'm from, _everybody_ is like this. Has nothing to do with
>reading Heinlein.
So what planet ARE you from? My guess would be that your remark
is hyperbole, that you're really from Earth, but I have to think
that you're not from Canada even though you post from a system there.
>Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
>rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
>social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
What about the social rules that say that a person has a right
to a trial, a right to confront an accuser, a right to defend
her actions? Guess we'll just have to take ol' RAH out and
shoot him. He was a good dog, but then he started insulting people
in public and in writing...
James Nicoll
>
>Heinlein would NOT have claimed that his way was the only way. What we
>would say is that it was HIS way. Want to interact with him? Play by his
>rules. Choose not to and no general moral odium attaches. He just won't
>interact with you.
>
>There is a difference between recognizing that there are many possible
>codes of behavior, each perhaps equally effective, and not having a code of
>behavior of one's own.
Hmmm. In _Space Cadet_, much is made of the correct set of manners
that all cadets are expected to learn, regardless of their home culture.
I can see a number of ways of looking at this part of the plot:
* It was Annapolis writ large, with the diverse cultures of the
world replacing those of the USA. The US of the first
half of the 20th century had an upperclass culture which
was the 'right' one*, so the world of the 21st century
had one, too.
* It was a method intended to deal with the problems of the diverse
cultures of the cadets by replacing them with a commen set
of rules and assumptions.
Any thoughts?
~r
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Graydon
: Hmmm. In _Space Cadet_, much is made of the correct set of manners
: that all cadets are expected to learn, regardless of their home culture.
: I can see a number of ways of looking at this part of the plot:
: * It was Annapolis writ large, with the diverse cultures of the
: world replacing those of the USA. The US of the first
: half of the 20th century had an upperclass culture which
: was the 'right' one*, so the world of the 21st century
: had one, too.
: * It was a method intended to deal with the problems of the diverse
: cultures of the cadets by replacing them with a commen set
: of rules and assumptions.
: Any thoughts?
It's quite possibly both; The Patrol is definately an American institution
in its antacedents, with some remarkably American purposes (suppressing
all warfare for the benefit of commerce). So I can easily see that it
would inherit the institutional manners of its institutional predecessors
(because they were 'right'), and that it involved a deliberate attempt to
create its own culture, both because of its mission and for the ussual
institutional reasons.
Also note that :Farmer in the Sky: makes it clear that the Patrol
eventually failed, in the face of extreme population pressure.
Matt Hickman
<snip>
> it is sad that Heinlein wouldn't be approached
>for an apology and possible reconciliation.
It seems to me that an apology is something like a 'gallant proposition.'
Whether is is received with welcome acceptance or a cold stare and a
brush off is entirely up to the individual being approached.
We can second guess the principals involved all we want. But we
cannot know know all that they knew or their thought processes. For
example, there could be other factors than the Sarge Smith letters involved.
According to another post in this thread, Smith's widow disputed Panshin's
version of how he got the letters. It is conceivable that there was a
misrepresentation on the part on Panshin in getting the letters, or
perhaps a perception that Panshin took undue advantage of a widow in
mourning. And if Panshin was sincere in his wish to apologise why didn't
he take the next step and do it publically in the _SFWA Journal_ or _Locus_?
My feeling is that Heinlein was entirely within his rights to refuse to talk to
Panshin under these or any other circumstances. And I do not feel qualified to
sit in judgement regarding an incident over twenty years in the past, with only
second hand information and no input from at least one of the principals. Others
may judge or not judge as they wish.
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
(Henry Kiku to Betty) "Young lady, you have the morals of snapping turtle
and the crust of a bakery pie."
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
_The Star Beast_ c. 1954
Ken Arromdee
David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
>The main problem here is that Heinlein was wrong. Panshin, writing a
>biography/critical work, is going to see various things Heinlein wrote
>that Heinlein might not want to see print.
Why should the fact that he is a critic have any effect on whether he was
wrong in reading the letters?
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Any creature who would disguise itself as a bone, obviously has no sense of
fair play!" -- Superboy Annual #1
Rick Cook
>Interesting observation...perhaps it's the unabashed conservatism of
>Heinlein. No other author, I believe, would consider the murder of a
>person at his dinner table in a restaurant as simply an unforgivable
>breach of manners; yet in The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, this is how
>Colin Campbell saw it - and made it appear to be the most important
>aspect of the incident.
>
>It's the conservatism of feudal lords, concerned more with appearance
>attributed to Henry Stimson, who refused to aggressively use
>intelligence information about Japanese diplomatic activity before WWII
>
Hogwash.
Or more correctly, an extremely parochial perspective. Because you don't
understand a set of customs makes them neither wrong nor laughable.
--RC
Rick Cook
>The main problem here is that Heinlein was wrong. Panshin, writing a
>biography/critical work, is going to see various things Heinlein wrote
>them. By the descriptions here, Panshin behaved honorably and Heinlein
>behaved like a six year old throwing a tantrum
The main problem is that you simply can't grasp customs and outlooks
significantly different from your own.
Heinlein had a very different take on the matter than either you or
Panshin. Which does not make him right any more than it makes you or
Panshin wrong. However he had every right to act on on it to the extent
that he did. (Shooting someone for such an action is obviously something
else again. Note that Heinlein never even suggested it in this case.)
You may disapprove of his actions. But that doesn't make him wrong either.
Personally the only thing I find astonishing about the matter is that
Panishin was so utterly dense that after studying Heinlein for years and
writing a book about him he was completely unable to understand the
perfectly obivous outcome.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>If you make the argument that correspondence is fair game (which it is
>not, in law, wrt publication; Salinger got that one demonstrated pretty
>solidly), you've asserted that society has no proper respect for a fairly
>large are of personal privacy.
>
>There are violations of privacy sufficently consequential to merit lethal
>responses; they're very rare and somewhat pathological cases, but they
>exist. (Making public something that the principals have privately dealt
>with that will require the principals to resolve publicly to their great
>detriment, for sufficently large values of 'detriment', for instance.)
>
behavior. Heinlein, please note, didn't do this. He simply decided what was
right for him and lived it.
--RC
P Nielsen Hayden
rrs...@ibm.net (Matt Hickman) wrote:
>My feeling is that Heinlein was entirely within his rights to refuse to talk
>to Panshin under these or any other circumstances. And I do not feel
>qualified to sit in judgement regarding an incident over twenty years in the
>past, with only second hand information and no input from at least one of the
>principals.
Excuse me while I get control of my eyebrows again. Are these two sentences
from the same post?
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
Graydon
: Graydon wrote:
: >There are violations of privacy sufficently consequential to merit lethal
: >exist. (Making public something that the principals have privately dealt
: >with that will require the principals to resolve publicly to their great
: >detriment, for sufficently large values of 'detriment', for instance.)
: >
: Now you're setting yourself up as the judge of what is proper social
: behavior. Heinlein, please note, didn't do this. He simply decided what was
: right for him and lived it.
Sure.
Nor am I saying that I think I'm the proper judge of social conduct; I
was making a statement on the basis of what I'm, personally, willing to
put up with. If society disagrees, well, bad things happen to me.
I also think it is difficult to read Heinlein's actions in this matter as
*not* containing a moral judgement; I don't doubt that he would not have
presented it as the only possible moral judgement, but I can't see a line
of convincing argument that would suggest that he didn't make one.
David MacLean
Bob Webber <web...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> Graydon,
>saun...@qlink.queensu.ca writes:
>>And if you don't think the Loonies had unbreachable social conventions,
>>you didn't read the book very carefully. Whether or not I'd be able to
>>deduce what those conventions were in sufficent time is something of a
>>moot point.
>
>The Loonies also used judges, not involved in the affair in question,
>to decide whether or not to kill someone. I don't recall that the
>society in question was described as having strong correspondence
>privacy conventions. My reading of the novel is that they would
>have had a strong convention guarding against private killings
>for motives which had not been revealed and adequately examined.
>
Actually, I was just rereading tMiaHM when your post appeared. The
appropriate section comes when Mannie is talking with Stu after
the "trial" and after Slim and Tish leave. It starts with a question
from Stu:
"Mannie, you're telling me that I can murder a man and settle the matter
merely with money?"
"Oh, not at all! But eliminating isn't against some law; are no laws -
except Warden's regulations - and Warden doesn't care what one Loonie does
to another. But we figure this way: If a man is killed, either he had it
coming and everybody knoes it - usual case - or his friends will take care
of it by eliminating the man who did it. Either way, no problem. Nor many
eliminations. Even set duels aren't common."
The point is that loonies don't use judges regularly; in fact, it was
pointed out that "After he lost a leg, he set up as a judge and was
quite successful; was not another judge in L-City at that time who did
not have side business, at least make book or sell insurance."
And in the case of Stuart Rene LaJoie versus the stilyagi, it was pointed
out:
"And pack of boys set upon him and roughed him up. Then decided he had
to pay for his "crime" - but do it correctly. Find a judge.
Most likely they chickened. Chances are not one had ever dealt with an
elimination. But their lady had been insulted, had to be done."
Judges were used only when the "plaintiff" was not 100% sure that he/she
was right, and had to have his beliefs confirmed by some authority.
Witness the stilyagi who were erecting a temporary airlock as an exercise
and were heckled. They took the heckler out and dumped him in vacuum.
No trial! And the talk after the event was over the thought that they
had been "hasty", not over whether they were "wrong".
It is my reading of the novel that those who heard of a "killing" with
little or no word on motive decided that it was none of their business;
either there was adequate motivation, or, if there was not, the person
that did the killing would be taken care of, probably by himself being
killed.
>Shooting somebody down, without even knowing for sure what he
>looked like, the first time you met him, based on your suspicion
>that he had read your correspondence with somebody else (which
>he claimed he was permitted to read)... Do the YMHAs on the
>Moon have airlocks? I bet they have qualified judges and socially
>concerned citizens with guns.
That would depend on what you mean by "qualified" judges. It appears
that in the novel, a person is qualified to do something if he does
it and is successful. Mannie goes to a "practical doctor", and judges
make book or sell insurance on the side.
I would wager that Heinlein's idea of a "socially concerned" citizen and
your idea of a "socially concerned" citizen are poles apart. Heinlein
had a streak of MYOB a mile wide, where as I find, from your post,
a willingness to accept outsiders sticking their noses into somebody
else's business when that business has little or nothing to do with
that outsider.
--
***************************************************************************
David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
***************************************************************************
David E Romm
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <romm-26129...@ppp-66-87.dialup.winternet.com>,
> David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
> >The main problem here is that Heinlein was wrong. Panshin, writing a
> >biography/critical work, is going to see various things Heinlein wrote
> >that Heinlein might not want to see print.
>
> Why should the fact that he is a critic have any effect on whether he was
> wrong in reading the letters?
Panshin was doing research. The letters were sent to him, the person they
were addressed to had died; he had permission to read them from his
widow. Are you suggesting that he shouldn't read his mail? I can show
you letters other people wrote me. It wouldn't be wrong of you to read
them, but it would be wrong of you to publish them. Panshin didn't
publish the letters. Panshin did the right thing. If Heinlein was going
to be mad at anyone, it should have been Mrs. Smith.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much of life. So aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." -- Thoreau
David E Romm
> David E Romm wrote:
> >The main problem here is that Heinlein was wrong. Panshin, writing a
> >biography/critical work, is going to see various things Heinlein wrote
> >that Heinlein might not want to see print. And Panshin didn't print
> >them. By the descriptions here, Panshin behaved honorably and Heinlein
> >behaved like a six year old throwing a tantrum
>
> The main problem is that you simply can't grasp customs and outlooks
> significantly different from your own.
>
> Heinlein had a very different take on the matter than either you or
> Panshin. Which does not make him right any more than it makes you or
> Panshin wrong. However he had every right to act on on it to the extent
> that he did. (Shooting someone for such an action is obviously something
> else again. Note that Heinlein never even suggested it in this case.)
>
> You may disapprove of his actions. But that doesn't make him wrong either.
Perhaps it's Heinlein who couldn't grasp customs and outlooks
significantly different than his own...
> Personally the only thing I find astonishing about the matter is that
> Panishin was so utterly dense that after studying Heinlein for years and
> writing a book about him he was completely unable to understand the
> perfectly obivous outcome.
I suspect that at the time, Panshin worshipped Heinlein as a hero, and
simply couldn't believe Heinlein would be that unreasonable.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Every person takes the limits for their own field of vision for the limits of the world." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
Ulrika
(Graydon) writes:
>And yeah, someone without bao is unable to live in society; either get
>them into a different society (which is what ignoring them constitutes a
>little of, by refusing them *your* society), or kill them. No really
>obvious third option for a person of adult years; conversion experiences
>of the neccessary magnitude are very, very rare.
This, of course, supposes that there is such a thing as a single,
monocultural, doxically homogenous "society" available to dictate
the fact of the matter with respect to being without bao. If there is
no such monoculture, if the society is doxically heterogenous,
then there is no fact of the matter. In the 1970s it was already
the case that there was no doxic monoculture, thus no fact of the
matter. Heinlein was behaving precisely like his own vision of a
barbarian, but then, he does not seem to have been a man known
for his flexibility.
--Ulrika
Ulrika
>And if you don't think the Loonies had unbreachable social conventions,
>you didn't read the book very carefully. Whether or not I'd be able to
>deduce what those conventions were in sufficent time is something of a
>moot point.
Yes, it is open to debate, isn't it?
--Ulrika
Richard Newsome
>
>Personally the only thing I find astonishing about the matter is that
>Panishin was so utterly dense that after studying Heinlein for years and
>writing a book about him he was completely unable to understand the
>perfectly obivous outcome.
I don't dislike Alexei Panshin, and I think it is a loss to the field
that he doesn't write very much anymore. However, I think that ultimately
the real cause of his problem with Heinlein was the fact that Panshin did
NOT understand Heinlein very well. Try reading _Heinlein in Dimension_
some time and see if you don't agree -- Panshin was trying to squeeze
Heinlein into a pigeonhole designed for some other writer of the older
generation, or maybe for a father Panshin feared and resented. Panshin's
comments on Heinlein do not map very well to the real Heinlein, in my
opinion -- they appear to be aimed at some straw man he's invented.
Panshin had the right idea in thinking that he needed to dig more deeply
into Heinlein's background -- had he gotten farther in his researches I
suspect he would have seen the contradictions between the real Heinlein
and the crude working hypotheses Panshin was trying to project onto him.
Kevin B. O'Brien
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon), wrote:
>If you make the argument that correspondence is fair game (which it is
>not, in law, wrt publication; Salinger got that one demonstrated pretty
>solidly), you've asserted that society has no proper respect for a fairly
>large are of personal privacy.
Not at all. If you turn the question around, this becomes more
apparent. Suppose I mail you something. By your logic, I have just
imposed an obligation on you to keep it private, which by your logic I
can enforce with the death penalty. You have no say in the matter at
all.
Odd planet you live on.
Kevin B. O'Brien
ko...@ix.netcom.com
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest."
Mark Twain
Rick Cook
> Hmmm. In _Space Cadet_, much is made of the correct set of manners
>that all cadets are expected to learn, regardless of their home culture.
>I can see a number of ways of looking at this part of the plot:
>
> * It was Annapolis writ large, with the diverse cultures of the
> world replacing those of the USA. The US of the first
> half of the 20th century had an upperclass culture which
> was the 'right' one*, so the world of the 21st century
> had one, too.
>
> * It was a method intended to deal with the problems of the diverse
> cultures of the cadets by replacing them with a commen set
> of rules and assumptions.
>
having a common set of behavior and expectations for groups like military
officers. In a real sense "Space Cadet" is simply Annapolis moved to the
21st Century -- or perhaps more realistically, one of those boys books
about military cadets moved into the 21st Century.
I think Heinlein also understood the problems with that approach, although
he usually dealt with them only peripherially in his books.
--RC
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
> >saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes:
> >> Whether or not I'd be able to deduce what those conventions were in
> >> sufficent time is something of a moot point.
> >
> >Yes, it is open to debate, isn't it?
>
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, folks, but I am afraid all of you are
right :-)
moot adj
1a: open to question : DEBATABLE
1b: subjected to discussion : DISPUTED
2 : deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic
--
Ahasuerus http://www.clark.net/pub/ahasuer/, including:
FAQs: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.fan.heinlein, alt.pulp, the Liaden Universe
Biblios: how to write SF, the Wandering Jew, miscellaneous SF
Please consider posting (as opposed to e-mailing) ID requests
Rick Cook
>I also think it is difficult to read Heinlein's actions in this matter as
>*not* containing a moral judgement; I don't doubt that he would not have
>presented it as the only possible moral judgement, but I can't see a line
>of convincing argument that would suggest that he didn't make one.
>
his actions as containing a *universial* moral judgement. They most
certainly reflected a judgement on his part, but for Heinlein that was
personal matter.
--RC
Rick Cook
> Panshin didn't
>publish the letters. Panshin did the right thing. If Heinlein was going
>to be mad at anyone, it should have been Mrs. Smith.
I'd suggest you're taking a much too narrow a version of the matter.
Heinlein's objection wasn't just to Panshin reading personal letters.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>Perhaps it's Heinlein who couldn't grasp customs and outlooks
>significantly different than his own...
The evidence is quite otherwise.
Again, you confuse understanding different customs and outlooks and
choosing to live by them. Utterly different things.
>> Personally the only thing I find astonishing about the matter is that
>> Panishin was so utterly dense that after studying Heinlein for years and
>> writing a book about him he was completely unable to understand the
>> perfectly obivous outcome.
>I suspect that at the time, Panshin worshipped Heinlein as a hero,
I suspect there is a lot of truth in this.
> and simply couldn't believe Heinlein would be that unreasonable.
Proving once again that 'worship' and 'understanding' are not at all the
same thing. Heinlein was not being at all unreasonable by his standards and
his likely reaction was anything but a secret to anyone who had actually
understood what he was reading when he read Heinlein.
Heinlein seems to suffer from misunderstanding by both his defenders and
detractors.
--RC
Rick Cook
> Heinlein was behaving precisely like his own vision of a
>barbarian, but then, he does not seem to have been a man known
>for his flexibility.
Utterly wrong. Heinlein was behaving precisely like his own vision of a
gentleman.
You don't need a monolithic standard of societal behavior in order to have
your own standard of behavior.
--RC
Graydon
: Our correspondent in Tierra del Fuego reports that
: saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon), wrote:
: >If you make the argument that correspondence is fair game (which it is
: >not, in law, wrt publication; Salinger got that one demonstrated pretty
: >solidly), you've asserted that society has no proper respect for a fairly
: >large are of personal privacy.
: Not at all. If you turn the question around, this becomes more
: apparent. Suppose I mail you something. By your logic, I have just
: imposed an obligation on you to keep it private, which by your logic I
: can enforce with the death penalty. You have no say in the matter at
: all.
With the provisio that I think killing someone is overreacting unless the
revalation in the correspondence is truly significantly damaging, that's
exactly how I view letters. (Ever letter of personal correspondence I've
ever recieved is in a heavy steel filing cabinet. :)
I'm also pretty darn careful what I put in letters to people who *don't*
think that way.
: Odd planet you live on.
So I'm told.
WAYNE JOHNSON
>
>WAYNE JOHNSON wrote:
>>Interesting observation...perhaps it's the unabashed conservatism of
>>Heinlein. No other author, I believe, would consider the murder of a
>>person at his dinner table in a restaurant as simply an unforgivable
>>breach of manners; yet in The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, this is
>>how Colin Campbell saw it - and made it appear to be the most
>>important aspect of the incident.
>>
>>It's the conservatism of feudal lords, concerned more with appearance
>>than actual need. Heinlein's outrage reminds me of the quote
>>attributed to Henry Stimson, who refused to aggressively use
>>intelligence information about Japanese diplomatic activity before
>>
RC:
>Hogwash.
>
>Or more correctly, an extremely parochial perspective. Because you
>don't understand a set of customs makes them neither wrong nor
>laughable.
>
>--RC
I find it very interesting that you presume to understand my "parochial
perspective", and my ignorance of customs. In fact, after reading my
post above, I fail to see where I consider either the feudal lord,
Heinlein, or Stimson's perspective as "laughable".
Such customs were and are a product of an age where appearance and
comportment were the difference between life and death. Privacy in the
transmission of messages was important enough to have messenger's
tongues torn out, or their eardrums punctured, etc., to insure privacy
of transmission.
In an era when the king's seal on a bit of wax was insurance that even
a blood enemy would not break it, honor - and the appearance thereof -
had a practical side. In Stimson's era, it was important that
diplomacy had the same honorable stance. To "cheat" and read the
contents of diplomatic pouches would ultimately render the diplomats
useless - this in an era with slow delivery of messages, and encryption
methods that were fallible.
Heinlein was of that era. Our own age sees the howling over privacy in
issues like the Clipper chip, PGP, and other issues. Privacy is
important; if entrusted with private data, the notion that being bonded
or otherwise being trustworthy is of paramount importance.
You should know that I am a computer consultant. As such, my clients
trust me with extremely confidential information - private matters,
corporate matters, tax matters, etc. If ever I was put under suspicion
of not holding such a confidence, my livelihood as well as my personal
honor would be in jeapoardy.
My attitude, therefore, is very much like Heinlein's; and your
outrageous assumption that I view his attitude as, and I quote,
"extremely parochial", is utterly intolerable.
My seconds shall see yours, sir, with your choice of weapons. Of
course. At dawn? Try not to be late.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Graydon
: In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
: (Graydon) writes:
: >And yeah, someone without bao is unable to live in society; either get
: >them into a different society (which is what ignoring them constitutes a
: >little of, by refusing them *your* society), or kill them. No really
: >obvious third option for a person of adult years; conversion experiences
: >of the neccessary magnitude are very, very rare.
: This, of course, supposes that there is such a thing as a single,
: monocultural, doxically homogenous "society" available to dictate
: the fact of the matter with respect to being without bao. If there is
: no such monoculture, if the society is doxically heterogenous,
: then there is no fact of the matter.
If so, how could I talk about getting the person into a different society?
One judges by one's own standards by necessity; just because there are
societies in which you could not own property you are not obligated to
respect the opinion that it is an offence before god for you to buy a car.
Graydon
I cavail at the insistence that a moral has to be a universal (since so
far as I can tell they're always personal in practice) but that's a
phrasing I can accept.
James Nicoll
Graydon <saun...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
snip
>Also note that :Farmer in the Sky: makes it clear that the Patrol
>eventually failed, in the face of extreme population pressure.
Are _Farmer in the Sky_ and _Space Cadet_ in the same universe?
I thought the juveniles were in similar but different universes. Anyway,
in FitS, it is *predicted* that the Patrol will fail but it had not done
so at that point AFAIR.
One wonders why increasing pre-capita wealth hadn't shriveled the
gonads of the humans in that future the way it does now.
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Gary Farber
: Are _Farmer in the Sky_ and _Space Cadet_ in the same universe?
: I thought the juveniles were in similar but different universes. Anyway,
: in FitS, it is *predicted* that the Patrol will fail but it had not done
: so at that point AFAIR.
I think it's a mistaken assumption to even ask this question. Heinlein
wrote individual books, and made the choices while writing them that he
deemed best at the time for the book. This often made for inconsistencies
in similar references. It didn't seem to bother him, and I don't see why
it should bother anyone else.
He also dealt with this to an extent in NUMBER OF THE BEAST, of course.
So I'd say you are right: each book is its own universe, but many have
overlapping assumptions and backgrounds. Overlapping: not identical.
The question of "writing in the same universe" didn't really arise very
much in sf until the last couple of decades, and is partially a *result*
of Heinlein's "Future History." This is entirely different from series
work, or stories as part of a series, such as Foundation. IMHO.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4bldvr$i...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
>(Graydon) writes:
>
>>Whyever would you expect that there _is_ an adequate apology for reading
>>somene else's private correspondence without the explicit permission of
>>all the parties involved? At least in Heinlein's universe, which Panshin
>
>>is in a terrible moral position to claim this much ignorance of.
>
>This is especially interesting in the light of a viewpoint taken by Col.
>Campbell
>in tMiaHM, i.e., that an appropriate way to deal with rudeness is by
>killing the
>offender. Maybe Panshin should have counted himself fortunate. I bet RAH
>was
>a great shot!
(a) I think you mean TCwWtW;
(b) He was a great shot, or at least good enough to be a firearms
intructor in the military; however I think the only thing he ever shot
was a feral cat which was harrassing his own cats;
(c) Just because RAH could appreciate the positive aspects of a system of
honour which allows a transgression of good manners to be redressed by
affirmative action with a lethal weapon doesn't mean he would
personally act thus in our society which forbids such (sensible)
retaliation. He was the one who frequently pointed out the dangers of
arousing the ire of Mrs Grundy, remember; he fully appreciated the
need to follow the mores of the culture you live in, regardless of
whether or not they are based on common sense. I mean, would you walk
around the streets of Peking eulogising democracy, for instance?
Ulrika
In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.caaundrsg@qlink.queensu.ca
(Graydon) writes:
> On the planet I'm from, _everybody_ is like this. Has nothing to do
with
> reading Heinlein.
Idly wonders what color the sky might be on Graydon's planet.
--Ulrika
Ulrika
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
>As Ahasueros noted...
Hmm. Would that be Ahasueros the Wandering Caballero? :)
Oh, well, I can't tell left coast from right without a program, so
who'm I to talk?
--Ulrika
Ulrika
writes:
>Hogwash.
>
>Or more correctly, an extremely parochial perspective.
But no more parochial than the behavior being defended, neh?
--Ulrika
David E Romm
(Graydon) wrote:
> David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
> : In article <4bp2l6$o...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
> : (Graydon) wrote:
> : > On the planet I'm from, _everybody_ is like this. Has nothing to do with
> : > reading Heinlein.
> : >
> : > Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
> : > rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
> : > social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
>
> : You live on a different planet than most.
>
> No shit.
Apparently not.
> : Sorry, but reading
> : correspondence is simply not a killing offense, except to those car bomb
> : conservatives who don't allow any gray areas at all.
>
> Piffle.
So Panshin would have been justified in killing Heinlein...?
> If you make the argument that correspondence is fair game (which it is
> not, in law, wrt publication; Salinger got that one demonstrated pretty
> solidly), you've asserted that society has no proper respect for a fairly
> large are of personal privacy.
>
> There are violations of privacy sufficently consequential to merit lethal
> responses; they're very rare and somewhat pathological cases, but they
> exist. (Making public something that the principals have privately dealt
> with that will require the principals to resolve publicly to their great
> detriment, for sufficently large values of 'detriment', for instance.)
There is a huge difference between _reading_ correspondence and
_publishing_ correspondence. Among other differences, the former requires
the permission of the recipient, the latter the permission of the sender.
Panshin had permission; the letters were sent to him. He did not 'make
public' the letters.
> : The main problem here is that Heinlein was wrong. Panshin, writing a
> : biography/critical work, is going to see various things Heinlein wrote
> : that Heinlein might not want to see print. And Panshin didn't print
> : them. By the descriptions here, Panshin behaved honorably and Heinlein
> : behaved like a six year old throwing a tantrum.
>
> You're presuming that claiming the status of critic or biographer
> entitles you to violate someone's privacy. This is not the only
> reasonable view on the matter.
So the only biographies you like are whitewashed ones? No one is allowed
to check on autobiographies? You're arguing against research...
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"The opposite of a great truth is another great truth... plus sales tax."
-- Shockwave, "You, the Jury"
David E Romm
Then what was his objection?
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
Nancy Lebovitz
Graydon <saun...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Stevens R. Miller (l...@interport.net) wrote:
>: In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes:
>: >If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>: >someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider killing
>: >them.
>
>: What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to say
>: things like this?
>
>On the planet I'm from, _everybody_ is like this. Has nothing to do with
>reading Heinlein.
>
>Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
>rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
>social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
>
well beyond legalities) of killing people.
Now that I think about it, someone who'd kill for non-consensual
correspondence-reading is much less fit for normal social intercourse
than someone who made a *habit* of n-c c-r.
Important note: Heinlein never recommended death for this particular
crime--he just publically refused to speak to the person who did it.
All the mentions of killing were brought in on this thread.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Nancy Lebovitz
Bob Webber <web...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> Graydon,
>saun...@qlink.queensu.ca writes:
>>And if you don't think the Loonies had unbreachable social conventions,
>>deduce what those conventions were in sufficent time is something of a
>>moot point.
>
>to decide whether or not to kill someone. I don't recall that the
>society in question was described as having strong correspondence
>privacy conventions. My reading of the novel is that they would
>have had a strong convention guarding against private killings
>for motives which had not been revealed and adequately examined.
>
>Shooting somebody down, without even knowing for sure what he
>looked like, the first time you met him, based on your suspicion
>that he had read your correspondence with somebody else (which
>he claimed he was permitted to read)... Do the YMHAs on the
>Moon have airlocks? I bet they have qualified judges and socially
>concerned citizens with guns.
Good points. The Loonies also killed for what would now be called
sexual harassment. It was *disgustingly* PC of them....
Nancy Lebovitz
>In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
>(Graydon) writes:
>
>>And yeah, someone without bao is unable to live in society; either get
>>them into a different society (which is what ignoring them constitutes a
>>little of, by refusing them *your* society), or kill them. No really
>>obvious third option for a person of adult years; conversion experiences
>>of the neccessary magnitude are very, very rare.
>
it's in a matter that they haven't thought about and haven't ideologized.
In this case, Panshin might have agreed that reading a living person's
private correspondence was rude if the matter had been put to him.
Nancy Lebovitz
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@tor.com> wrote:
>In article <4bpnvf$2b...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
> rrs...@ibm.net (Matt Hickman) wrote:
>
>>My feeling is that Heinlein was entirely within his rights to refuse to talk
>>to Panshin under these or any other circumstances. And I do not feel
>>qualified to sit in judgement regarding an incident over twenty years in the
>>past, with only second hand information and no input from at least one of the
>>principals.
>
>Excuse me while I get control of my eyebrows again. Are these two sentences
>from the same post?
>
There are plenty of things that one can do within one's rights which might
not be good ideas.
Nancy Lebovitz
>Ulrika wrote:
>> Heinlein was behaving precisely like his own vision of a
>>barbarian, but then, he does not seem to have been a man known
>>for his flexibility.
>
>Utterly wrong. Heinlein was behaving precisely like his own vision of a
>gentleman.
>
someone who thinks that the rules of his tribe are laws of nature.
On the other hand, I'm quite sure that he thought he was legitimately
defending important boundaries. Why shouldn't "gentleman" be a barbaric
concept?
Nancy Lebovitz
WAYNE JOHNSON <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Stevens R. Miller writes:
>>
>>In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
>(Graydon) writes:
>>
>>>If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>>>someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider
>>>killing them.
>>
>>What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to
>>say things like this?
>
>Heinlein. No other author, I believe, would consider the murder of a
>person at his dinner table in a restaurant as simply an unforgivable
>breach of manners; yet in The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, this is how
>Colin Campbell saw it - and made it appear to be the most important
>aspect of the incident.
It's been a while since I've read the book, but my impression was
that Colin Campbell had a *really* rigid personality, and that this
wasn't portrayed as an entirely wonderful trait.
On the other hand, Heinlein characters sound so self-assured that it's
easy to fall into believing that they're telling you the absolute
truth about how things work.
David E Romm
> In article <romm-26129...@ppp-66-87.dialup.winternet.com>,
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
>
> >As Ahasueros noted...
>
> Hmm. Would that be Ahasueros the Wandering Caballero? :)
Damn vowels.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"In order to perform miracles, one must take notes."
-- Robert Sheckley
Gary Farber
: It depends--I think adults can change their behavior fairly easily if
: it's in a matter that they haven't thought about and haven't ideologized.
: In this case, Panshin might have agreed that reading a living person's
: private correspondence was rude if the matter had been put to him.
For the record, there's no "might" about this, to my knowledge. He began
looking at the letters he had been given, found that they were entirely
personal, ceased reading them after having read just sufficiently a
fraction to determine this, and returned them largely unopened. Which is
what he wanted to convey to Heinlein, regardless of whether this would
make a difference to Heinlein.
That, at least, is the story as I understand it, and is more or less
Panshin's version, for what that's worth.
Loren J. MacGregor
>
> Utterly wrong. Heinlein was behaving precisely like his own vision of a
> gentleman.
Let's see: to refuse to let someone apologize is the mark of a
gentleman. Uh-HUH. Say, you wouldn't be interested in this bridge I'm
selling, would you?
-- LJM
Loren J. MacGregor
>
> With the provisio that I think killing someone is overreacting unless
> the revalation in the correspondence is truly significantly damaging,
> that's exactly how I view letters. (Ever letter of personal
> correspondence I've ever recieved is in a heavy steel filing cabinet.
> :)
How odd. My own view is that the only things I can be damaged by are
those things of which I am so ashamed (or which are so illegal) that I
must keep them silent; hence, nothing I say to anyone do I consider
"private" unless it is something regarding someone *else,* in which case
I point out that I'm sharing it for a particular purpose and the
information should be used with discretion.
What I write is part of who I *am*; if I am ashamed of that person, then
my shame *should* be revealed.
Although I can certainly understand that some folks have different
definitions of privacy than I do, the only reason *I* can see for someone
of Heinlein's stature being so upset about the idea of his personal
correspondence being shared is if his private viewpoints differed greatly
from his public pronouncement.
And ... er ... as long as we're on the subject of Heinlein's letters,
what do people feel his viewpoint would have been about "grumbles from
the grave?"
-- LJM
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>David E Romm wrote:
>> Panshin didn't
>>publish the letters. Panshin did the right thing. If Heinlein was going
>>to be mad at anyone, it should have been Mrs. Smith.
>
>I'd suggest you're taking a much too narrow a version of the matter.
>Heinlein's objection wasn't just to Panshin reading personal letters.
Then you're implying that there's more to the story than we've heard so
far, which is an entirely different matter. It's perfectly acceptable
to hold such information in confidence, but if you're going to
participate in this argument, you must make the fact that you have such
information known.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het nipple boy
Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 4 days and counting
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>Proving once again that 'worship' and 'understanding' are not at all the
>same thing. Heinlein was not being at all unreasonable by his standards and
>his likely reaction was anything but a secret to anyone who had actually
>understood what he was reading when he read Heinlein.
That seems contrary to the claim I've frequently heard that one should
not attribute to the author what zie writes about through the
mouthpieces of zir characters.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>Idly wonders what color the sky might be on Graydon's planet.
Lead.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>You don't need a monolithic standard of societal behavior in order to have
>your own standard of behavior.
OTOH, someone who lives in a society where zir standard of behavior is
either significantly different from the norm or is only one of multiple
standards of behavior ought to make allowances for people whose standard
of behavior is different from zir own.
James Gifford
: I don't dislike Alexei Panshin, and I think it is a loss to the field
: that he doesn't write very much anymore. However, I think that ultimately
: the real cause of his problem with Heinlein was the fact that Panshin did
: NOT understand Heinlein very well. Try reading _Heinlein in Dimension_
: some time and see if you don't agree -- Panshin was trying to squeeze
: Heinlein into a pigeonhole designed for some other writer of the older
: generation, or maybe for a father Panshin feared and resented. Panshin's
: comments on Heinlein do not map very well to the real Heinlein, in my
: opinion -- they appear to be aimed at some straw man he's invented.
Loud and sustained applause. I think you have, in around a hundred words,
managed to strike the pinlike fastening device precisely on its intended
striking surface.
: Panshin had the right idea in thinking that he needed to dig more deeply
: into Heinlein's background -- had he gotten farther in his researches I
: suspect he would have seen the contradictions between the real Heinlein
: and the crude working hypotheses Panshin was trying to project onto him.
Somewhat lesser applause. Faulty theories lead to faulty conclusions
unless the theorist has the mental cojones to chuck the parts that don't
fit. Panshin was what, 24, 25 when he wrote the essential parts of _HiD_
and whatever he may have become since, I don't think even bare, raw,
evident facts would have changed his stated opinions.
Or anyone else in his essential position.
--
* James Gifford * jgif...@crl.com * Friends don't let friends use Macs *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* See http://www.crl.com/~jgifford for the Heinlein FAQ, ordering *
* info for _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion_ & much more *
Rick Cook
>
>I find it very interesting that you presume to understand my "parochial
>perspective", and my ignorance of customs. In fact, after reading my
>post above, I fail to see where I consider either the feudal lord,
>Heinlein, or Stimson's perspective as "laughable".
Having read the 'explanation' that follows, I think 'parochial' and
'laughable' are about the kindest words that can be applied to your views.
Heinlein was born in this century for cripe's sake, not 15th Century
Europe.
--RC
Rick Cook
>I cavail at the insistence that a moral has to be a universal (since so
>far as I can tell they're always personal in practice)
A wise distinction. One not always made, unfortunately.
> but that's a phrasing I can accept.
Thanks.
--RC
Rick Cook
>(c) Just because RAH could appreciate the positive aspects of a system of
>honour which allows a transgression of good manners to be redressed by
>affirmative action with a lethal weapon doesn't mean he would
>personally act thus in our society which forbids such (sensible)
>retaliation.
Also keep in mind that a good deal of what Heinlein wrote was, in his own
mind, anyway, satire. Of the order of the people who go around telling dead
lawyer jokes.
Shooting social pests is an idea with a lot of charm even for people who
wouldn't dream of doing it.
--RC
Rick Cook
(I wrote)
>> I'd suggest you're taking a much too narrow a version of the matter.
>> Heinlein's objection wasn't just to Panshin reading personal letters.
>
His objection, clearly stated, was to having his privacy invaded in the
manner in which Panshin chose to do it.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Both, actually. He'd defined a barbarian (in GLORY ROAD, I think) as
>someone who thinks that the rules of his tribe are laws of nature.
>On the other hand, I'm quite sure that he thought he was legitimately
>defending important boundaries. Why shouldn't "gentleman" be a barbaric
>concept?
Heinlein didn't think that his rules were laws of nature. But he applied
them to himself and tried to live them -- including not dealing with people
who offended him in certain ways when it was appropiate to do so.
Remember, Heinlein lived a good portion of his adult life under a rather
different set of rules not of his own making -- the rules of a US Naval
Officer of the time. In that context you did not have the option of cutting
off all dealings with an officer whose behavior offended you. If you had to
serve with the man you had to serve with him and you'd better get along
well enough for the good of the service.
--RC
Rick Cook
>And ... er ... as long as we're on the subject of Heinlein's letters,
>what do people feel his viewpoint would have been about "grumbles from
>the grave?"
He specifically approved of the project, especially since it would earn
money for his widow. He also wanted it done after he was dead, of course.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Let's see: to refuse to let someone apologize is the mark of a
>gentleman. Uh-HUH. Say, you wouldn't be interested in this bridge I'm
>selling, would you?
Proving once again that your vision of a gentleman and Heinlein's don't
match. Further, that some people's customs are different from you own.
Shocking, I know. But there it is.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Then you're implying that there's more to the story than we've heard so
>far, which is an entirely different matter.
If you haven't heard it I suspect it's because you haven't been listening.
Heinlein objected to having his privacy invaded in the fashion in which
Panshin chose to do his research. The letters were to Heinlein merely the
most extreme example. He made reference to this in print and reference was
made to it early in this thread.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>not attribute to the author what zie writes about through the
>mouthpieces of zir characters.
>
Heinlein could have predicted his reaction. Panshin, despite his adulation
of Heinlein and his attempt to write a study of him, clearly didn't.
--RC
Rick Cook
>either significantly different from the norm or is only one of multiple
>standards of behavior ought to make allowances for people whose standard
>of behavior is different from zir own.
Granted. But if one's own standard of behavior can call for refusing to
have anything to do with the transgressor. Which is what Heinlein's called
for and which is what he did. Panshin was foolish enough to push the matter
in a public place and he got exactly what he should have expected.
Seems to me Panshin was the one who refused to make allowances.
--RC
Loren J. MacGregor
>
> Heinlein seems to suffer from misunderstanding by both his defenders
> and detractors.
Yes, and you're one of his defenders, aren't you?
-- LJM
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> In article <4bo81n$a...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
> WAYNE JOHNSON <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Stevens R. Miller writes:
>>>
>>>In article <4bnn2k$1...@knot.queensu.ca> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
>>(Graydon) writes:
>>>
>>>>If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>>>>someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider
>>>>killing them.
>>>
This is patently ridiculous. If your ex-significant other shows some of
your letters to someone, you _may_ want to consider killing your ex :-) .
But, unless something like false credentials was in the picture, why would
would you want to kill the person to whom it was shown (or given in this
case)? I'd rather thank the person who returned them to me so that they
couldn't be shown further (while at the same time being extremely embarrassed
that he/she saw my innermost thoughts without my consent through the
unworthiness/ignorance/malevolence of the original addressee).
You seem to think you own letters you have freely sent to others. You _do_
own the copyright, but _absolutely_ you do not own the letters themselves.
If you don't want anyone to ever read what you send to somebody, be very
careful about who "somebody" is.
Question: Could these letters have come from around the time that Heinlein's
first marriage was disintegrating? This might have provoked such an extreme,
even unreasonable, response.
BTW. Heinlein's books are filled with examples of Longs (who IMHO may have
been the most similar to RAH himself--in his own mind--of any of his charac-
ters) acting quite stupidly in areas of social problem solving. Perhaps he was
capable of such behavior himself? [Consider LL in bed with B & M Smith in
TSBTS (or in numerous other situations in many sources), CC when he received a
new leg for grafting from LL in TCWWTW(?), or IS when he misunderstood LL
about the futility of WW1 in TEFL and TSBTS.]
I loved Heinlein growing up and even still today, but he wasn't perfect.
(I mean, he _did_ write IWFNE didn't he?)
John Garland
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
WAYNE JOHNSON
Piffle. Have you ever shaken hands with anyone? Been in the military,
and saluted an officer? Opened a door for a woman? How are your table
manners?
The habits and customs of a "modern gentleman", which, I venture, you
would claim to be, are derived from the necessities of earlier times.
The sanctity of private correspondence is something that was held in
nearly the esteem of the sanctity of the confessional. Heinlein did
not want Panshin dead, as Nancy observed, for reading his letters; he
simply wished to remove Panshin from his world - the equivalent of
denying him to death.
As for the concept of Stimson not wishing to read other gentlemen's
mail, if you find such a concept laughable, your attitude is incredibly
parochial and subjective. You can't even imagine the conditions of a
half century ago, let alone 15th century Europe.
The views of our "feudal lord" and Stimson aren't necessarily mine, but
I can understand the context in which they were generated, and can
easily recognize their modern incarnations. Obviously, you can't.
Without this talent, I would give your chances of surviving with
Heinlein's Loonies as very slim indeed.
Where were you this morning? I grew bored waiting, and was forced to
shoot your second for wiping his nose with his sleeve. Of course, you
understand the need for my admittedly slightly hasty action.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Molhant Norman
>Stevens R. Miller (l...@interport.net) wrote:
>: In some earlier post, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes:
>: >If someone were to read my private correspondence to
>: >someone without my permission... I would certainly at least consider
>: >killing them.
>: What is it about Heinlein that causes otherwise reasonable people to say
>: things like this?
>On the planet I'm from, _everybody_ is like this. Has nothing to do with
>reading Heinlein.
>Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
>rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
>social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
On the planet I'm from, one teaches social rules explicitly, but apparently
that is not done on _this_ planet, where one must learn them in the school
of hard knocks.
Killing someone as a response to his/her failure to observe social rules is
hardly an efficient way to teach those rules. Such a rash act could be
understood if these rules were explicitly taught - as on the planet I'm from -,
but not in the present case, on a planet where one must learn these rules by
trial and error.
After all, do we always kill the politicians who keep lying election after
election? No, we just keep re-electing them - at least that's what we do in
Canada, but then, it's cold here in the North, and those politicians are lying
till they are blue in the face, so we can pretend we failed to notice the lies.
Still, lying _is_ a breach of an essential social rule. It is also an accepted
way of doing politics. Proves that the so-called social rules do not form a
coherent set.
As for _considering_ killing someone in retaliation for an act perceived as a
grave offense, well, one can _consider_ any appealing solution to one's
problems in the privacy of one's head, can't one?
>--
>saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
By the way, how are things going at Queen's U.?
Bye!
Norman.
--
----------------------------------------------+------------------------------
I own a PC to program what my customers want. | mol...@ere.umontreal.ca
I own a Mac to program what my students need. | above_opinions.only_owner =
I own an Amiga to program what I want & need. | Norman W. Molhant = me;
Barry DeCicco
|> As for the concept of Stimson not wishing to read other gentlemen's
|> mail, if you find such a concept laughable, your attitude is incredibly
|> parochial and subjective. You can't even imagine the conditions of a
|> half century ago, let alone 15th century Europe.
|>
|> The views of our "feudal lord" and Stimson aren't necessarily mine, but
|> I can understand the context in which they were generated, and can
|> easily recognize their modern incarnations. Obviously, you can't.
|> Without this talent, I would give your chances of surviving with
|> Heinlein's Loonies as very slim indeed.
|>
Actually, the problem was that Stimson's 'context' was of gentleman
(as opposed to rulers) from a similar culture, which wouldn't wage
total war upon each other - in short, Vicotorian-era Anglo-Saxons.
The context he was actually operating was of large, impersonal powers,
which were ready and willing to wage total war, but would take any
advantage that they could get, as long as the liabilities associated
with taking the advantage didn't outweigh the advantage itself.
Barry
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>BTW. Heinlein's books are filled with examples of Longs (who IMHO may have
>been the most similar to RAH himself--in his own mind--of any of his charac-
>ters) acting quite stupidly in areas of social problem solving. Perhaps he was
>capable of such behavior himself? [Consider LL in bed with B & M Smith in
>TSBTS (or in numerous other situations in many sources), CC when he received a
>new leg for grafting from LL in TCWWTW(?), or IS when he misunderstood LL
>about the futility of WW1 in TEFL and TSBTS.]
>
intelligence rather than longevity. :-)
W$
>>Society doesn't survive if there are no consequences to breaking social
>>rules. Killing someone is an extreme response to most failures to observe
>>social rules, but there's nothing wrong with considering such an option.
>On the planet I'm from, one teaches social rules explicitly, but apparently
>that is not done on _this_ planet, where one must learn them in the school
>of hard knocks.
>Killing someone as a response to his/her failure to observe social rules is
>hardly an efficient way to teach those rules. Such a rash act could be
>understood if these rules were explicitly taught - as on the planet I'm from -,
>but not in the present case, on a planet where one must learn these rules by
>trial and error.
Some people are just beyond learning the most rudimentary manners.
I personally think rudeness should be a capital offense; it would help offset
the population explosion, and human society would be much nicer.
>After all, do we always kill the politicians who keep lying election after
>election?
No, unfortunately not. But just think, if you erected a guillotine on the
steps of Congress and lopped off all their heads, like they did in France, the
next group of politicians "might" be more careful about their lies and
shannigans! Maybe not, but I vote we try it!
> No, we just keep re-electing them - at least that's what we do in
>Canada, but then, it's cold here in the North, and those politicians are lying
>till they are blue in the face, so we can pretend we failed to notice the lies.
In the U.S. we try to pretend they're lying to everybody but US, and that
they'll represent OUR wishes.
>Still, lying _is_ a breach of an essential social rule. It is also an
accepted>way of doing politics. Proves that the so-called social rules do not
form a>coherent set.
Well ... really just proves politics is really only needed by the politicians.
They're just nice enough to let us pay for their games.
>As for _considering_ killing someone in retaliation for an act perceived as a
>grave offense, well, one can _consider_ any appealing solution to one's
>problems in the privacy of one's head, can't one?
Yes that's true. (I can see the blade going up now, and the Speaker of the
House is screaming and trying to get out of the stocks, but the blade ....)
Ken Arromdee
Loren J. MacGregor <lmac...@greenheart.com> wrote:
>How odd. My own view is that the only things I can be damaged by are
>those things of which I am so ashamed (or which are so illegal) that I
>must keep them silent; hence, nothing I say to anyone do I consider
>"private" unless it is something regarding someone *else,* in which case
>I point out that I'm sharing it for a particular purpose and the
>information should be used with discretion.
Ah, I get it. If you have nothing to hide, you have no need for privacy.
(I wonder how you'd handle prejudice in your system: someone hiding their
religion or sexual orientation isn't necessarily _ashamed_ of it, but
genuinely worried about other people's reactions.)
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Any creature who would disguise itself as a bone, obviously has no sense of
fair play!" -- Superboy Annual #1
Edmund C. Hack
James Nicoll <jam...@coulomb.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <4bpnpd$9...@knot.queensu.ca>,
>Graydon <saun...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>Also note that :Farmer in the Sky: makes it clear that the Patrol
>>eventually failed, in the face of extreme population pressure.
>
> Are _Farmer in the Sky_ and _Space Cadet_ in the same universe?
They seem to be, mostly due to the references to the Patrol enforcing the
peace. Certainly the technology of FitS is more advanced (heat trap,
torch ships) than SC, but has rationing of food.
>I thought the juveniles were in similar but different universes. Anyway,
>in FitS, it is *predicted* that the Patrol will fail but it had not done
>so at that point AFAIR.
>
Yes. The breaking point was 30-100 years away, AFAIR.
> One wonders why increasing pre-capita wealth hadn't shriveled the
>gonads of the humans in that future the way it does now.
The "demographic transition" as it is called, was not really spotted
until the 60s/70s, when the birth rates in some of the developed world
dropped to replacement and below. When I was studying this subject
(mid-70s) it was still controversial as to whether it was an artifact of
the times or a real phenomena. Certainly some sf works ("The Marching
Morons") dealt with it. There are also references in FitS to the birth
rate being higher in some areas of the world outside of North America.
--
Edmund Hack \ "Woodrow Wilson has his fourteen points, but
ech...@crl.com \ Clemenceau turns to Lloyd George and says
Houston, TX \ 'You know that God himself had only ten.'" - Al Stewart
lmac...@greenheart.com
>
> Proving once again that your vision of a gentleman and Heinlein's don't
> match. Further, that some people's customs are different from you own.
>
> Shocking, I know. But there it is.
I must admit I'm curious, though -- when did you read Heinlein's mind,
that you "know" what he thought on these issues? Others, faced with the
same set of information, seem to have reached different conclusions.
Could it possibly be that you're extending your OWN social code over what
you BELIEVE you know of Heinlein's?
--
Loren J. MacGregor -- lmac...@greenheart.com
--Technical & Fictional Writing and Editing--
Rick Cook
>The habits and customs of a "modern gentleman", which, I venture, you
>would claim to be,
You'd lose.
> are derived from the necessities of earlier times.
Yep. In Heinlien's case about a generation or two earlier.
Part of your problem is you seem to think there is only one thing which is
or has been called a 'gentleman'. This is of course nonsense. What Heinlein
would have called a gentleman would have been very different from what an
Englishman of the same era would have meant by the term.
>The sanctity of private correspondence is something that was held in
>nearly the esteem of the sanctity of the confessional.
Not hardly. However poking around in someone else's business was considered
decidedly ill-mannered.
> Heinlein did
>not want Panshin dead, as Nancy observed, for reading his letters; he
>simply wished to remove Panshin from his world - the equivalent of
>denying him to death.
Part of Heinlein's attitude was that you didn't waste time on such people, yes.
>As for the concept of Stimson not wishing to read other gentlemen's
>mail, if you find such a concept laughable,
What I find laughable is your attempt at an explanation of such attitudes.
The attitudes themselves are perfectly comprehensible taken in context.
Even if not necessarily appropiate, as in Stimson's case.
--RC
Bob Webber
writes:
>: Are _Farmer in the Sky_ and _Space Cadet_ in the same universe?
>: I thought the juveniles were in similar but different universes. Anyway,
>: in FitS, it is *predicted* that the Patrol will fail but it had not done
>: so at that point AFAIR.
>
>I think it's a mistaken assumption to even ask this question. Heinlein
>wrote individual books, and made the choices while writing them that he
>deemed best at the time for the book. This often made for inconsistencies
>in similar references. It didn't seem to bother him, and I don't see why
>it should bother anyone else.
When I first realized that Heinlein did this, it bothered me a lot, maybe
to some extent because of a model of created universes I'd gotten from
comic books (not exactly models of consistency, either, but read when
younger and less perceptive). How dare Heinlein have almost-the-same
Martians in _Red Planet_ and _Stranger in a Strange Land_!
Later, I realized that many sf writers do this to some extent, and that
in fact many of the writers I really enjoyed did it a lot. Finally,
I realized that the aliens and even the "universes" were just stage
sets and props for the really important things, the stories. Later
than finally I realized that Heinlein and other good writers often
refine the detail and sophistication of those sets and props between
uses, so the later Martians have a lot more to them than the earlier
ones, whose ability to make things disappear is mere hand waving.
Reading through the Cordwainer Smith collection published by NESFA,
it seemed to me that the same re-use of sets and props, only not quite
the same, runs through those stories. It's like some image or images
get stuck in the writer's head and leave their imprint on every story
that emerges.
With that thought in mind, the tendency exhibited by a number of aging
deans of science fiction to try to tie up all the details of all their
stories seems terribly sad, in a way: good, solid, freestanding novels
turned retroactively into the middle volumes of mediocre sf series...
The fix-up at the next larger order of magnitude.
Bob
Julian Treadwell
aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
>In article <4bqfne$o...@news2.delphi.com>, Rick Cook <rc...@BIX.com> wrote:
>>
>>You don't need a monolithic standard of societal behavior in order to have
>>your own standard of behavior.
>
>OTOH, someone who lives in a society where zir standard of behavior is
>either significantly different from the norm or is only one of multiple
>standards of behavior ought to make allowances for people whose standard
>of behavior is different from zir own.
Surely not insisting on pistols at dawn showed RAH made *some*
allowances?
>Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 4 days and counting
OK you got me. 4th virtual anniversary of what?
Rick Cook
>I must admit I'm curious, though -- when did you read Heinlein's mind,
>that you "know" what he thought on these issues?
Mindreading optional. But if you know the time and place Heinlein comes
from an awful lot about the man becomes clear. Further, if you have mutual
friends you can learn a good deal more. Finally, it helps to actually read
what someone writes (correspondence and essays as well as fiction.)
Heinlein is not the great mystery that a lot of people make him out to be.
He was in fact an extremely direct and straightforward person according to
everyone I've ever talked to who knew him at all well.
> Others, faced with the
>same set of information, seem to have reached different conclusions.
>Could it possibly be that you're extending your OWN social code over what
>you BELIEVE you know of Heinlein's?
Not hardly, since I don't believe many of the things contained in that
social code.
However I have known people who believed as he did and acted as he did and
who came out of the same milleu and similar milleus.
Why is that so hard to understand?
--RC
Stevens R. Miller
>...just think, if you erected a guillotine on the
>steps of Congress and lopped off all their heads, like they did in France, the
>next group of politicians "might" be more careful about their lies and
>shannigans!
Is that how things have worked out in France?
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
KFackler
<j...@iprolink.co.nz> writes:
>>Maybe Panshin should have counted himself fortunate. I bet RAH
>>was a great shot!
>(a) I think you mean TCwWtW;
You are so right! Big oopsie. Those two stories are so closely intertwined
that I frequently seem to refer to one when I should have done the other.
>(c) Just because RAH could appreciate the positive aspects of a system of
>honour which allows a transgression of good manners to be redressed by
>affirmative action with a lethal weapon doesn't mean he would
>personally act thus in our society which forbids such (sensible)
>retaliation.
Your point is well made but I'm not sure it's valid. Heinlein also stated
that
he never left his quarters without being adequately armed. I misdoubt he
would
have done so if not prepared to use his weapon(s) as circumstances
required.
What are those circumstances? I fear we'll never know.
>He was the one who frequently pointed out the dangers of
>arousing the ire of Mrs Grundy, remember; he fully appreciated the
>need to follow the mores of the culture you live in
So he did. I well remember the _blue mud in the navel_. But I believe that
this
"advice" was always tendered in situations where one had no choice about
the
matter _and_ it was a matter of survival. He also wrote something like:
Geniuses
always make their own rules.
NOTE: In the light of the somewhat heated comments this thread is
developing, let me hasten to qualify my statements as friendly discussion,
not intended as argument.
Dave Bell
<4bs6q1$2...@news2.delphi.com>
>Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
>>Then you're implying that there's more to the story than we've heard so
>>far, which is an entirely different matter.
>
>If you haven't heard it I suspect it's because you haven't been listening.
>Heinlein objected to having his privacy invaded in the fashion in which
>Panshin chose to do his research. The letters were to Heinlein merely the
>most extreme example. He made reference to this in print and reference was
>made to it early in this thread.
Point of Information: The thread appears to have been cross-posted in
rec.arts.sf.fandom some time after it started. The initial posting
there was quite limited. At most, it suggested to me that Heinlein,
before the incident of the letters, didn't like Panshin's conclusions.
--
Dave Bell
P Nielsen Hayden
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <4bprsi$5...@park.interport.net>,
>P Nielsen Hayden <p...@tor.com> wrote:
>>In article <4bpnvf$2b...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
>> rrs...@ibm.net (Matt Hickman) wrote:
>>
>>>My feeling is that Heinlein was entirely within his rights to refuse to
>>>talk to Panshin under these or any other circumstances. And I do not feel
>>>qualified to sit in judgement regarding an incident over twenty years in
>>>the past, with only second hand information and no input from at least one
>>>of the principals.
>>
>>Excuse me while I get control of my eyebrows again. Are these two sentences
>>from the same post?
>>
>There are plenty of things that one can do within one's rights which might
>not be good ideas.
I think you misunderstand. I wasn't talking about Heinlein's rights; I was
observing the incongruity between Mr. Hickman, first, making a judgement
"regarding an incident over twenty years in the past, with only second hand
information," etc., and then second, telling us he doesn't feel qualified to
make a judgement regarding an incident over twenty years in the past with only
second hand info, etc.
Not a big deal, but it did seem as if the writer wanted both to make the
judgement _and_ get moral credit for refusing to make the judgement. Which is
a variety of trying to have your cake and eat it too. :)
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
P Nielsen Hayden
Bob Webber <web...@world.std.com> wrote:
>With that thought in mind, the tendency exhibited by a number of aging
>deans of science fiction to try to tie up all the details of all their
>stories seems terribly sad, in a way: good, solid, freestanding novels
>turned retroactively into the middle volumes of mediocre sf series...
>The fix-up at the next larger order of magnitude.
Oh, _very_ well said.
Gary Farber
: Point of Information: The thread appears to have been cross-posted in
: rec.arts.sf.fandom some time after it started. The initial posting
: there was quite limited. At most, it suggested to me that Heinlein,
: before the incident of the letters, didn't like Panshin's conclusions.
This is incorrect. I started this thread, and it was cross-posted to
r.a.sf.f, r.a.sf.written, and alt.fan.heinlein at the start, as it seemed
of interest to all three groups. Since then, as is usual, people have
played with the cross-postings so that each group has seen a slightly
different mix of posts -- I've been reading in all three groups as a
result.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
David E Romm
> David E Romm wrote:
> >
> >Perhaps it's Heinlein who couldn't grasp customs and outlooks
> >significantly different than his own...
>
> The evidence is quite otherwise.
>
> Again, you confuse understanding different customs and outlooks and
> choosing to live by them. Utterly different things.
And again, it seems as if Heinlein confused understanding customs and
choosing to live with them. Heinlein's characters do very well in
adapting to whatever culture they're in. Heinlein himself seems to have
failed to do that. Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
> >> Personally the only thing I find astonishing about the matter is that
> >> Panishin was so utterly dense that after studying Heinlein for years and
> >> writing a book about him he was completely unable to understand the
> >> perfectly obivous outcome.
>
> >I suspect that at the time, Panshin worshipped Heinlein as a hero,
>
> I suspect there is a lot of truth in this.
>
> > and simply couldn't believe Heinlein would be that unreasonable.
>
> Proving once again that 'worship' and 'understanding' are not at all the
> same thing. Heinlein was not being at all unreasonable by his standards and
> his likely reaction was anything but a secret to anyone who had actually
> understood what he was reading when he read Heinlein.
'By his standards' being the key there. If Panshin had actually done what
Heinlein accused him of doing, perhaps Panshin would have understood
better... Catch-22. If Panshin violates Heinlein's privacy, he knows him
well enough not to violate his privacy...
> Heinlein seems to suffer from misunderstanding by both his defenders and
> detractors.
It's not fair to judge a man by one incident, but this whole thread has
tarnished Heinlein's reputation, and the reputation of his defenders.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards." -- Robert Heinlein
James Nicoll
David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>And again, it seems as if Heinlein confused understanding customs and
>choosing to live with them. Heinlein's characters do very well in
>adapting to whatever culture they're in. Heinlein himself seems to have
>failed to do that. Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
>makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
Well, only about fifty years past at the time of the incident,
if the set of manners involved were those common when Heinlein was a
kid.
massive erosion of context
>It's not fair to judge a man by one incident, but this whole thread has
>tarnished Heinlein's reputation, and the reputation of his defenders.
Why? Did he fail to follow his code of behavior consistently?
Did he apply it hypocritically? I'm not sure what criteria you are applying
here.
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
KFackler
>>Still, lying _is_ a breach of an essential social rule.
Really? I remember Lazarus Long expounding on this subject at one point.
Something about telling your friends/neighbors what you _really_ think of
their kids. Essential social rule, yes, but essential that we DO it. And
we
do it all the time:
Am I disturbing you? No, come on in.
You busy? Not too busy for you - what can I do for you?
Have a nice day!
Are you mad at me? No.
Thanks for shopping at (fill in the blank).
And so on....
W$
>In article <wsak.84....@halcyon.com> ws...@halcyon.com (W$) writes:
>>...just think, if you erected a guillotine on the
>>steps of Congress and lopped off all their heads, like they did in France, the
>>next group of politicians "might" be more careful about their lies and
>>shannigans!
>Is that how things have worked out in France?
Sadly not. The French must be resistant to change! Still I think it's worth
trying; like if at first you don't succeed then ..... . Well something like
that!
Dave Bell
<4bu94a$n...@panix2.panix.com>
Sorry. When I checked back, there was a reference to the Timebinders
mailing list... And you do actually refer, in passing, to their being
other issues involved. But the various eyewitness accounts, etc.,
concentrate on this incident, and Panshin's conclusions from his
research. That looks to have triggered a lot of argument about the
single instance of Heinlein's behaviour, about how it relates to
characters in his books, and how various posters should behave.
In short, those of us who weren't around in fandom at the time don't
have the complete picture, even if they have seen all the postings on
the topic. I'm sure a summary would be appreciated.
--
Dave Bell
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
>>Then you're implying that there's more to the story than we've heard so
>>far, which is an entirely different matter.
>
>If you haven't heard it I suspect it's because you haven't been listening.
>Heinlein objected to having his privacy invaded in the fashion in which
>Panshin chose to do his research. The letters were to Heinlein merely the
>most extreme example. He made reference to this in print and reference was
>made to it early in this thread.
A reference was made, but it wasn't supported, and it hasn't been part
of the main line of argument. The onus is on you to bring it up if you
want to make it a main part of your argument.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het nipple boy
Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 3 days and counting
James Gifford
: In article <4brogl$j...@universe.digex.net>,
: nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
: > Both, actually. He'd defined a barbarian (in GLORY ROAD, I think) as
: > someone who thinks that the rules of his tribe are laws of nature.
: > On the other hand, I'm quite sure that he thought he was legitimately
: > defending important boundaries. Why shouldn't "gentleman" be a barbaric
: > concept?
: Datapoint: The 'barbarian' quote we're throwing about is actually from
: one of Shakespeare's plays: _Julius Caeser_, I think. We may be falling
: into the trap of thinking that RAH had the properties of a Shakespeare
: character instead of the more usual trap of thinking that RAH had the
: properties of a RAH character !
Er, no. It's from Shaw.
The Bard was not the only one to write about Caesar. :)
--
* James Gifford * jgif...@crl.com * Friends don't let friends use Macs *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* See http://www.crl.com/~jgifford for the Heinlein FAQ, ordering *
* info for _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion_ & much more *
David E Romm
Dancing Machine) wrote:
> In article <4bsqns$e...@news.express.co.nz>,
> Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >>Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 4 days and counting
> >
> >OK you got me. 4th virtual anniversary of what?
>
> Of the day my partner first sent me e-mail, of course.
How do you celebrate? Download naughty pictures of each other? Invent
cutsie-poo encryption passwords? Send e-mail to everyone who thought it
wouldn't work out...
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Good luck, Mr. Gorsky." -- Neil Armstrong
Simon Slavin
David Emerson
>My feeling is that Heinlein was entirely within his rights to refuse to talk
>to Panshin under these or any other circumstances.
Of course he was within his rights. Whether one has a right (in this country)
to behave in any legal fashion is not in question. The question is whether
Heinlein acted like a decent human being or a jerk.
I say he acted like a jerk. A rigid, unforgiving, bitter old jerk.
Regardless of what Panshin had done, to refuse to even listen to an apology
strikes me as an extremely cold and uncompassionate action.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
David Emerson
"I don't have a life. I have a program." -- the Doctor, ST:Voyager
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew (aha...@clark.net) wrote:
> : [snip] However, it's fairly well known that
> : it is advisable to *mail* all and any serious apologies. That way you (a)
> : prevent potential misunderstandings often caused by anxiety attacks and
> : suchlike, (b) protect yourself by retaining a copy of what you wrote, and
> : (c) avoid scenes like the one just described. Hopefully, somebody will
> : learn from this unfortunate incident.
>
> I don't know this for a fact, and could have it either completely wrong,
> or just garbled, but I believe I recall hearing, or reading, that Panshin
> had written such apologies several times, but they were either returned
> unopened, or otherwise disregarded.
>
> My understanding is that Alexei Panshin made every effort short of
> parachuting onto the Heinlein grounds. Again, I could have an
> exaggerated sense of this.
>
> I'm certainly not trying to hold Panshin up as a saint to Heinlein's
> demon. Panshin's views on Heinlein are most arguable, and fault can be
> found with them. Heinlein's views on his privacy are well known (or they
> were). But he was, among many other things, what I might loosely call "a
> touchy guy." I am fairly sure that Panshin had tremendous love for
> Heinlein's work, and no desire whatever to offend him.
>
> This is why it strikes me as rather sad. [snip]
Indeed. Ditto. Agreed.
Nevertheless, Richard Newsome's observation that Panshin's behavior in
this case seems to indicate that he didn't have a very good understanding
of RAH's views/attitudes sounds reasonable. Moreover, if *my* letters to
Heinlein were returned unopened and if I were a RAH admirer (which isn't
to say that I am not - in my own perverted way :), I wouldn't dream of
approaching him publicly until I clarifed matters privately. Why would I
want to make a bad situation worse?
The only explanation of Panshin's behavior that I can think of is that he
(a) was *really* fond of Heinlein to the point of being at least partially
blinded by it, (b) didn't think he had done anything unforgivable and thus
believed that the real problem was his being unable to communicate his
side of the story (and apology) to Heinlein, (c) thought he had tried all
other possible approaches, and (d) as Richard said, didn't understand
Heinlein's "code of honor" very well.
Anyways, I don't think that many of us would be likely to do what Heinlein
did in 1973 - well, OK, Graydon excepted :-) - but I believe (and many
other posters seem to agree) that the crux of the matter is that the
conflict was one of two different views of the world. Educational ;-|
--
Ahasuerus http://www.clark.net/pub/ahasuer/, including:
FAQs: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.fan.heinlein, alt.pulp, the Liaden Universe
Biblios: how to write SF, the Wandering Jew, miscellaneous SF
Please consider posting (as opposed to e-mailing) ID requests
Gary Farber
: aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
: > Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
: > >>Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 4 days and counting
: > >
: > >OK you got me. 4th virtual anniversary of what?
: >
: > Of the day my partner first sent me e-mail, of course.
: How do you celebrate? Download naughty pictures of each other? Invent
: cutsie-poo encryption passwords? Send e-mail to everyone who thought it
: wouldn't work out...
I assume they start by fingering each other.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 4 days and counting
>
>OK you got me. 4th virtual anniversary of what?
Of the day my partner first sent me e-mail, of course.
Julian Treadwell
>And ... er ... as long as we're on the subject of Heinlein's letters,
>what do people feel his viewpoint would have been about "grumbles from
>the grave?"
It says in the introduction to "Grumbles" that the publication of the
letters in it was suggested by RAH himself before he died.
Lord Peter Wimsey
: I would wager that Heinlein's idea of a "socially concerned" citizen and
: your idea of a "socially concerned" citizen are poles apart. Heinlein
: had a streak of MYOB a mile wide, where as I find, from your post,
: a willingness to accept outsiders sticking their noses into somebody
: else's business when that business has little or nothing to do with
: that outsider.
And what about those people who consider any killing for any other reason
than defense of someone's life to be their business? What about the friends
or relatives? What would happen if someone offed every single member of
a particular lynch mob? Would that be considered excessive? Why? They were
all guilty of murder, from the avenger's viewpoint.
Would an annoying and acerbic social critic be perpetually at risk?
Obviously, no Mencken would ever be found on Heinlein's Moon.
TTFN
P.D.B. Wimsey
--
"Hell of a place to lose a cow" - Ebenezer Bryce upon first seeing
Bryce Canyon.
Stevens R. Miller
>: Heinlein had a streak of MYOB a mile wide...
"MYOB"?
Stevens R. Miller
>> Heinlein's characters do very well in
>>adapting to whatever culture they're in. Heinlein himself seems to have
>>failed to do that. Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
>>makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
>You're assuming Heinlein would have cared. The evidence is that he would not.
>To a certain point he was pretty much indifferent to what people other than
>those he liked and respected thought of him.
I love this. Heinlein's worshipers seem to think that if he did something
outrageously iconoclastic, then that makes him a kind of hero. However, if
someone can be accused of adherence to the ideals of a group, that makes him
or her a mere sheep, following another herd.
It seems, IMHO, a contradiction.
James Gifford
: > David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
: > Heinlein had a streak of MYOB a mile wide...
: "MYOB"?
Hey! Mind your own business!
K C Moore
ro...@winternet.com "David E Romm" writes:
> Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
^^ ^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
I presume you mean the way he made his disapproval public. If someone
behaved that way for the same reason in this country (the UK) now, I
would consider him justified in his resentment though perhaps unusual
in his expression of it. I am surprised to learn (if that is indeed
the consensus view) that reading other people's private mail without
permission is considered normal in the US nowadays.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
also think it was Les Ernest(sp) at Stanford who did it first, almost
certainly on SAIL.
I could be wrong about all of this.
73, doug
From: awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 00:00:15 GMT
<text deleted>
Thanks, Gary. That's the first good laugh I've had all day. Not to
mention the first time in a long time the use of that otherwise overused joke
took me by surprise.
Surely, in the annals of unixia, it is recorded who the miscreant was
who named this particular function. I hope he's been fingered to death.
(What a way to go!)
--
Michael R Weholt
awnb...@panix.com
http://www.panix.com/~awnbreel/
Julian Treadwell
>Datapoint: The 'barbarian' quote we're throwing about is actually from
>one of Shakespeare's plays: _Julius Caeser_, I think. We may be falling
>into the trap of thinking that RAH had the properties of a Shakespeare
>character instead of the more usual trap of thinking that RAH had the
>properties of a RAH character !
>
Right character, wrong play. It was 'Caesar and Cleopatra' by George
Bernard Shaw.
Rick Cook
>Point of Information: The thread appears to have been cross-posted in
>rec.arts.sf.fandom some time after it started. The initial posting
>there was quite limited. At most, it suggested to me that Heinlein,
>before the incident of the letters, didn't like Panshin's conclusions.
>
rather private person and even before he knew about Panshin's conclusions
he wasn't at all happy about having anyone digging up stuff about him
personallly for publication.
That's why Panshin's book has remained so popular, I think. For all its
flaws it is still (to my knowledge) the best book-length study of Heinlein
and his work done to date. Not only wouldn't Heinlein cooperate in such an
effort, but he strongly discouraged his friends from cooperating as well.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>And again, it seems as if Heinlein confused understanding customs and
>choosing to live with them.
Again on the evidence, Heinlein understood the difference perfectly.
However he had his own code of behavior and he generally chose to live by
it.
> Heinlein's characters do very well in
>adapting to whatever culture they're in. Heinlein himself seems to have
>failed to do that. Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
>makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
You're assuming Heinlein would have cared. The evidence is that he would not.
To a certain point he was pretty much indifferent to what people other than
those he liked and respected thought of him.
Nor was that 'code of honor' a century past. It was the code he saw in
action in his boyhood. Now you can claim that he was a fossil for hanging
onto the customs of his past. And he would not have cared in the slightest.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Anyways, I don't think that many of us would be likely to do what Heinlein
>did in 1973 - well, OK, Graydon excepted :-) - but I believe (and many
>other posters seem to agree) that the crux of the matter is that the
>conflict was one of two different views of the world. Educational ;-|
Just so. IMHO. Heinlein was not the average SF fan writ large -- or even
the average 1940s SF fan. He was a rather different type and that makes him
nearly incomprehensible for a lot of fans.
He's not the only one who has the problem, btw. I've known a couple of
other highly regarded sf/fantasy authors who were utterly opaque to even
most of their ardent fans.
--RC
Rick Cook
> And what about those people who consider any killing for any other reason
> than defense of someone's life to be their business? What about the
>friends
> or relatives? What would happen if someone offed every single member of
> a particular lynch mob? Would that be considered excessive? Why? They were
> all guilty of murder, from the avenger's viewpoint.
An interesting speculation, but it doesn't have much to do with Heinlein.
> Would an annoying and acerbic social critic be perpetually at risk?
> Obviously, no Mencken would ever be found on Heinlein's Moon.
What usually happens in a situation like that is that people stop well
short of killing such folk merely because they don't like their attitudes.
At least this is the historical experience in the American west -- which I
suspect was the source of many of Heinlien's details for his loonie
culture.
--RC
Peter D. Smith
[snip]
>In article <4bvnio$k...@news2.delphi.com> rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) writes:
>>> Heinlein's characters do very well in
>>>adapting to whatever culture they're in. Heinlein himself seems to have
>>>failed to do that. Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
>>>makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
>>You're assuming Heinlein would have cared. The evidence is that he would not.
>>To a certain point he was pretty much indifferent to what people other than
>>those he liked and respected thought of him.
>I love this. Heinlein's worshipers seem to think that if he did something
>outrageously iconoclastic, then that makes him a kind of hero. However, if
>someone can be accused of adherence to the ideals of a group, that makes him
>or her a mere sheep, following another herd.
>It seems, IMHO, a contradiction.
>--
>Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Mommy, how can I be a non-conformist like everybody else?
Happy Holidays,
PSmith
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
>
> >As Ahasueros noted...
>
> Hmm. Would that be Ahasueros the Wandering Caballero? :) [snip]
Amusingly, the preferred modern-day Hebrew pronunciation is ~Ahasuerosh :)
Rick Cook
>I love this. Heinlein's worshipers seem to think that if he did something
>outrageously iconoclastic, then that makes him a kind of hero. However, if
>someone can be accused of adherence to the ideals of a group, that makes
>him or her a mere sheep, following another herd.
>It seems, IMHO, a contradiction.
Hardly surprising, since you've utterly misunderstood both Heinlein and the
people you deem to be worshiping him.
First of course, I'm not aware of any Heinlein worshipers in this thread. I
certainly am not.
Second, my focus at least has simply been on trying to explain why Heinlein
did what he did with Panshin. Looked at in light of Heinlein and his
background his actions are both perfectly predictable and not at all
unusual.
In fact the notion that what Heinlein did was somehow iconoclastic is
incorrect and I've been trying to explain that ever since I entered this
thread.
Finally, whether you find Heinlein's actions admirable or not is moot as
far as I am concerned. If you understand what he did and why and choose to
disagree with him that's certainly your privilege. However before forming a
judgement it helps, I think, to understand where he was coming from.
I will add this about the merit of Heinlein's course. Shunning those you
dislike strongly had the advantage of preserving both social peace and the
equmanity of all concerned. In that it is an emminently civilized course of
action -- provided it is feasible.
How 'modern' it might be, or how wise Heinlein was to apply it the way he
did in this instance are very much matters of opinion.
--RC
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>Side note on copyright: the possessor of a letter has the right to do
>with it what zie will; however, the copyright still vests with the
>author, and if someone other than the author publishes the letter, zie
>can be sued.
This is true under the Berne Convention, where you automatically have
copyright to anything you write, but is it also the case under the
American copyright laws? I would be surprised to learn that it was. It
is my impression that you had to send a copy so some official library
(Library of Congress?) in order to recieve copyright to anything.
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
'There was a man,' remarked Captain Eliot, 'who was sentenced
to death for stealing a horse from a common. He said to the judge,
that he thought it hard to be hanged for stealing a horse from a
common and the judge answered, "You are not to be hanged for
stealing a horse from a common, but that others may not steal
horses from commons." '
'And do you find,' asked Stephen, 'that in fact horses are not
daily stolen from commons? You do not!'
--- "The Mauritius Command" by Patrick O'Brian
Nancy Lebovitz
is not much more common among sf authors than it is in the general
population. What do you think?
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
nstn5414
>
>This, of course, supposes that there is such a thing as a single,
>monocultural, doxically homogenous "society" available to dictate
>the fact of the matter with respect to being without bao.
As I understand it, the US midwest when RAH grew up is pretty close to
your requirements. Mind you, we could argue that RAH might have been a
bit more sophisticated by his age, but then others could have agrued
about his lack of consistency.
Almost all of this thread has been about the narrow issue of reading some
"private" mail. Has it occurred to anyone that there may well be much
more to this anecdote than appears and that this whole discussion,
although interesting, may have little to do witht the "facts" as
reported? Do we "know", for example, that this was the first meeting
between the two?
Cheers. Langley
nstn5414
>
. He'd defined a barbarian (in GLORY ROAD, I think) as
>someone who thinks that the rules of his tribe are laws of nature.
Just to set the record straight, RAH got this definition from George
Bernard Shaw. It arises in his play, Anthony and Cleopatra, where a
character by the name of Britannicus is dismissed as a barbarian for this
reason.
Cheers. Langley
David MacLean
>: your idea of a "socially concerned" citizen are poles apart. Heinlein
>: had a streak of MYOB a mile wide, where as I find, from your post,
>: a willingness to accept outsiders sticking their noses into somebody
>: else's business when that business has little or nothing to do with
>: that outsider.
>
> than defense of someone's life to be their business? What about the friends
> or relatives?
Two questions that you *want* to be related, but are not related at all.
The killing of a friend or relative *is* the friend or relative's business
due to the relationship - friendship or blood. However, the "people who
consider any killing for any other reason than defense of someone's life to
be their business" are, in actuality, making it their business for no other
reason than they *want* to make it their business. If the victim is unknown
to those people, and their is no relationship at all, why should a killing
be ANY of their business?
> What would happen if someone offed every single member of
> a particular lynch mob? Would that be considered excessive?
Not by me. Not having been part of a lynch mob, nor knowing any member of
a lynch mob, why should it concern me? It *does* concern the friends and
family of the members of that lynch mob.
And in a nation that executes people, it boils down to what Professor
Bernardo de la Paz states is the *key* question, a radical question that
strikes to the root of the whole dilemma of government: Under what
circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a
member og that group to do alone?
> Why? They were
> all guilty of murder, from the avenger's viewpoint.
>
Certainly. No argument. And if a friend or relative were to be executed
by this selfstyled avenger, I would have to take that into account before,
and even if, I took any action.
> Would an annoying and acerbic social critic be perpetually at risk?
Are you worried? :-)
Seriously, Heinlein's thesis on this is that mutual fear would make
citizens more polite, tolerant, and thick skinned. tMiaHM is not the
only place where he makes this point - see _Beyond This Horizon_.
Would an annoying and acerbic social critic be perpetually at risk? Yes.
But he/she put him/herself in that risk. To reduce the risk, all that
is required is to be less annoying and less acerbic - note that I did
not say unannoying and unacerbic.
> Obviously, no Mencken would ever be found on Heinlein's Moon.
Not so obviously. Mencken has some brilliance, but he adopted his
demeanour to the present society, which says "the sqeaky wheel gets
the grease". In other words, if he had not projected himself as he
did, he would not be listened to by the population at large.
On the other hand, in the society posited by Heinlein, courtesy wrought
by fear of annihilation would tend to make people listen, and express
any disagreement in polite and respectable terms - in other words,
attack the argument, not the arguer; debate *what* he says, not *how*
he says it nor what you *think* he said.
--
***************************************************************************
David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
***************************************************************************
David MacLean
l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) wrote:
>>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>
>
>"MYOB"?
>
Information, not a demand - initialese for Mind Your Own Business.
David E Romm
In article <DKAzs...@novice.uwaterloo.ca>, jam...@coulomb.uwaterloo.ca
(James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <romm-28129...@ppp-66-1.dialup.winternet.com>,
> David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >And again, it seems as if Heinlein confused understanding customs and
> >choosing to live with them. Heinlein's characters do very well in
> >adapting to whatever culture they're in. Heinlein himself seems to have
> >failed to do that. Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
> >makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
>
> Well, only about fifty years past at the time of the incident,
> if the set of manners involved were those common when Heinlein was a
> kid.
Even if that kind of rigidity was only 50 years in the past, surely the
Dean of Science Fiction would know what culture he's living in now. Heck,
he helped to create it.
> >It's not fair to judge a man by one incident, but this whole thread has
> >tarnished Heinlein's reputation, and the reputation of his defenders.
>
> Why? Did he fail to follow his code of behavior consistently?
> Did he apply it hypocritically? I'm not sure what criteria you are applying
> here.
Please read the above paragraph you quoted. Following a foolish code of
behavior tarnishes one's reputation, whether one follows it consistently
or not.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military."
-- Georges Clemenceau
David E Romm
> David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
> : aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
> : > Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
> : > >>Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 4 days and counting
> : > >
> : > >OK you got me. 4th virtual anniversary of what?
> : >
> : > Of the day my partner first sent me e-mail, of course.
>
> : How do you celebrate? Download naughty pictures of each other? Invent
> : cutsie-poo encryption passwords? Send e-mail to everyone who thought it
> : wouldn't work out...
>
> I assume they start by fingering each other.
As opposed to strumming, presumably. In cyberspace, one can erect a nice,
homey Travis Picket Fence.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." -- Pablo Picasso
Zed
forth the following:
>Some people are just beyond learning the most rudimentary manners.
>I personally think rudeness should be a capital offense; it would help offset
>the population explosion, and human society would be much nicer.
Dear Sir,
I sincerely hope you were joking. If not, then
FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU.
Get your ass to Singapore or some such.
Sincerely,
Russell Miller
---
"I am the story I tell myself."
--Greg Wait (z0...@ix.netcom.com)
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
>
> In an era when the king's seal on a bit of wax was insurance that even
> a blood enemy would not break it, honor - and the appearance thereof -
> had a practical side. In Stimson's era, it was important that
> diplomacy had the same honorable stance. To "cheat" and read the
> contents of diplomatic pouches would ultimately render the diplomats
> useless - this in an era with slow delivery of messages, and encryption
> methods that were fallible.
>
> Heinlein was of that era. Our own age sees the howling over privacy in
> issues like the Clipper chip, PGP, and other issues. Privacy is
> important; if entrusted with private data, the notion that being bonded
> or otherwise being trustworthy is of paramount importance.
>
> You should know that I am a computer consultant. As such, my clients
> trust me with extremely confidential information - private matters,
> corporate matters, tax matters, etc. If ever I was put under suspicion
> of not holding such a confidence, my livelihood as well as my personal
> honor would be in jeapoardy.
>
> My attitude, therefore, is very much like Heinlein's; and your
> outrageous assumption that I view his attitude as, and I quote,
> "extremely parochial", is utterly intolerable.
>
> My seconds shall see yours, sir, with your choice of weapons. Of
> course. At dawn? Try not to be late.
2 comments:
1. A quick perusal (or as a computer consultant more likely a re-perusal)
of David Kahn's _The Codebreakers_ might be in order re. your analysis of
Stimson's views. Cryptanalysis had a long and devious history in the
West/Europe. In point of fact, the US--and for only those few years--was
just about the only leading Western power for centuries that got out of the
business. That is, centres of power generated cryptanalytic bureaus
almost without fail. (This included faked king's seals :-) .) Some
might argue that Stimson's views showed that the US was not quite yet
a leading Western power in this time period. (I would, for example.)
2. As a psychologist I have some understanding of privacy and confidentiality
issues. (In fact, one of my incarnations is Registrar for the provincial
board here & it is my job/duty to investigate breaches of confidentiality.)
I would argue that modern professional codes of ethics, while based,
possibly, on an older "gentlemanly" model, have now become more in the
nature of contracts. Basically we trade on our training and on our promise
to adhere to an ethical code. (You, the consumer, then know what the limits
of confidentiality are and have recourse if they are broken. In point of
fact, _failure_ to inform clients of these limits is a common cause of
adverse findings.) As a consultant, this reasoning applies even more
strongly IMHO. You--and I mean this in the absolutely most
non-censorious sense--appear to be trading on your rules of privacy (just
as does any licensed professional). Both situations appear to me to be
somewhat remote from 19th century notions of "gentleman". (First and
foremost, gentlemen did not engage in trade of goods and services.)
Heinlein a gentleman? No, I really don't think so. Certainly Jane Austen
would not have recognized him as one. Samuel Clemens? Well he may have (using
parochial Missouri standards!). A proud and free individual who reserved the
right to be a cast iron son-of-a-bitch when it suited him and when on his own
turf (loosely translated from JH in SIASL)? IMO much closer to the mark. Does
this diminish him? To me, not in any way.
John Garland
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Barry DeCicco
ws...@halcyon.com (W$), wrote:
>Some people are just beyond learning the most rudimentary manners.
>I personally think rudeness should be a capital offense; it would help offset
>the population explosion, and human society would be much nicer.
This reminds me of the late Tom Washington of Michigan - he was the
president of the Michigan NRA, and I think possibly a national president
(not sure). He liked to use the saying, 'An armed society is a polite
society.'. However, he was frequently quoted using blistering language
to anyone he disagreed with (I think that one reporter used to call him
up, because Washington would always oblige him with some good, nasty
quotes).
This would seem to be a contradiction, except that it fits in with another
theory - many of those who advocate such stuff assume that they will be
among the authorized killers, and not the killees, in the sense that
they could kill someone for beiing rude (in their opinion) and walk, but
that nobody else could kill them for being rude (in that somebody else's
opinion), without being swiftly executed.
I don't think that I have ever seen my alternate theory violated.
Barry
Bob Webber
l...@interport.net writes:
>>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>
>>: Heinlein had a streak of MYOB a mile wide...
>
>"MYOB"?
"MYOB" is what gets stuck in your moustache when your nose goes "Spung!"
The highly masculine Mr Heinlein had a luxurious moustache and his
nose had a bad tendency to go "Spung!" (c.f. Heinlein's characters'
cryptic remark, "You talk like a man with a paper nose.") A candid
photo of Heinlein, taken during the Denvention appeared over the
caption, "A Mile High and a Mile Wide!"
Informatively yours,
Bob
David E Romm
> In article <romm-28129...@ppp-66-1.dialup.winternet.com>
> ro...@winternet.com "David E Romm" writes:
>
> > Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
> ^^ ^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> > makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
>
> I presume you mean the way he made his disapproval public. If someone
> behaved that way for the same reason in this country (the UK) now, I
> would consider him justified in his resentment though perhaps unusual
> in his expression of it. I am surprised to learn (if that is indeed
> the consensus view) that reading other people's private mail without
> permission is considered normal in the US nowadays.
Of course, Panshin had permission...
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Accomplishing the impossible means only that the boss will add it to your regular duties." -- Doug Larson
David Mix Barrington
: And ... er ... as long as we're on the subject of Heinlein's letters,
: what do people feel his viewpoint would have been about "grumbles from
: the grave?"
He planned a posthumous volume many years before his death, assigning
it that title, though I'm not sure he necessarily had letters in mind at that
point (I believe this is discussed in one of the letters in _GftG_). I
read on the net that he intended the posthumous letters volume to enhance
Virginia's financial security. Surely he had no problem with the letters
appearing as edited by her, as from all indications she was the person in
the world he most trusted.
Some letters by others to RAH appear in _GftG_. It would certainly be
hypocritical if any of these appeared without _their_ author's permission,
but I have no reason to think this happened. In fact IIRC (I've not read
_GftG_ in a while) there is mention of some interesting letters Virginia did
not include for this reason...
Dave MB
W$
>From: bdec...@sunm4048as.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco)
>Subject: Re: A Heinlein Anecdote
>Date: 29 Dec 1995 16:04:13 GMT
>ws...@halcyon.com (W$), wrote:
>
>>Some people are just beyond learning the most rudimentary manners.
>>I personally think rudeness should be a capital offense; it would help offset
>>the population explosion, and human society would be much nicer.
> This reminds me of the late Tom Washington of Michigan - he was the
>president of the Michigan NRA, and I think possibly a national president
>(not sure). He liked to use the saying, 'An armed society is a polite
>society.'. However, he was frequently quoted using blistering language
>to anyone he disagreed with (I think that one reporter used to call him
>up, because Washington would always oblige him with some good, nasty
>quotes).
Someone posting in alt.fan.heinlein, and especially this thread should
logically be reminded of a number of Heinlein charactors that made remarks
like this, including Lazarus Long. I doubt that Heinlein actually advocated
such severe legislation, nor do I, the remark obviously being tongue-in-cheek,
and a comment on the fact that there are quite a number of people in society
that are lacking in social graces.
> This would seem to be a contradiction, except that it fits in with another
>theory - many of those who advocate such stuff assume that they will be
>among the authorized killers, and not the killees, in the sense that
>they could kill someone for beiing rude (in their opinion) and walk, but
>that nobody else could kill them for being rude (in that somebody else's
>opinion), without being swiftly executed.
The obvious downfall of permitting government such powers, as Heinlein also
remarked on, and with which I agree.
Before one draws conclusions about a given comment, it's advisable to consider
the context in which it is made. This prevents one from making foolish
assumptions about the intentions of the author.
Geoff Joy
>
> One thing you might want to add (or to know yourself): A picture
> of Sarge Smith appears, without identication, in GRUMBLES FROM
> THE GRAVE. In the photo on page 85, he's the bearded fellow
> holding Heinlein's Hugo.
> --
> -- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
> Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
One thing that no-one seems to have noted is that Heinlein's reaction
may not have been due to feelings that HIS privacy was invaded, but
Heinlein may have felt that Smith's privacy was being compromised.
Heinlein was a military man, Smith was also. Both of them were combat
veterans. There exists a bond between veterans that cannot be broken,
some things can be communicated between veterans that an outsider
might misconstrue.
I think Heinlein accepted a certain amount of public 'interest' in him
as a person. I don't think he would have accepted expressions of that
same interest in his friends lives simply because they knew him. I
don't suppose anyone knows whether Smith knew Heinlein from Heinlein's
Naval Academy days or where that relationship started? It might shed
some light on the reason for the dedication of /Starship Troopers/ to
Smith. Reading /Starship Troopers/, I have no doubt that RAH truely
respected Drill Sergeants and Platoon Sergeants. That respect for
"Sarge" Smith may have been the impetus for the reaction to Panshin's
contact with Smith's widow.
--
Geoff Joy - ke6qh -
Micro-Tech Engineering
PGP public key available on public key servers.
1024/EF05C6D1 1995/12/21 Geoffrey L. Joy <geo...@deltanet.com>
8B 28 1E 93 6E 10 D8 A3 73 1C 23 77 9A 4C 2F 9F
James Gifford
: One thing that no-one seems to have noted is that Heinlein's reaction
: may not have been due to feelings that HIS privacy was invaded, but
: Heinlein may have felt that Smith's privacy was being compromised.
: Heinlein was a military man, Smith was also. Both of them were combat
: veterans. There exists a bond between veterans that cannot be broken,
: some things can be communicated between veterans that an outsider
: might misconstrue.
I won't disagree with the gist of your statement, but if you have any
evidence that Heinlein ever saw combat, I'd like to hear it. Other than a
few rumored "armed standoff" situations, I don't believe he ever heard a
shot fired in anger-- or fired one himself.
--
* James Gifford * jgif...@crl.com * Friends don't let friends use Macs *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* See http://www.crl.com/~jgifford for the Heinlein FAQ, ordering *
* info for _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion_ & much more *
W$
>ws...@halcyon.com (W$), in a moment of visionary revalation, spewed
>forth the following:
>>Some people are just beyond learning the most rudimentary manners.
>>I personally think rudeness should be a capital offense; it would help offset
>>the population explosion, and human society would be much nicer.
> Dear Sir,
> I sincerely hope you were joking. If not, then
>
> FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU.
> Get your ass to Singapore or some such.
> Sincerely,
> Russell Miller
Dear Stupid Fool,
The line was paraphrased from some comments by Lazarus L.. This group is
called "alt.fan.heinlein" in case you missed it.
However, since you, like the young delinquent in Singapore that was cained,
like to spread your graffiti around for all to see, I'd happily make an
exception to the tongue-in-check saying, and see your sort executed for real.
No doubt as you post your vulgar and inane sayings while hiding behind your
news client, you snicker with glee, and plan some new excapade involving
torture on your neighbor's pet.
You may crawl back into the woodwork now.
David Dyer-Bennet
>Remember, Heinlein lived a good portion of his adult life under a rather
>different set of rules not of his own making -- the rules of a US Naval
>Officer of the time.
Seems to me he served less than 5 years before he was invalided out;
can't remember now if 1929 was his graduation or his invaliding. Add
to that 4 years at Annapolis (though being a cadet isn't at all the
same thing as being a naval officer, socially). And the incident
under discussion took place in the 70s; so he'd spent a large majority
of his life as a civillian at that point.
--
David Dyer-Bennet d...@network.com, d...@terrabit.mn.org, d...@gw.ddb.com
SF cons: http://www.ddb.com/4th-Street, http://www.mnstf.org/minicon31
Me: http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, Olympus photo eqpt. for sale, sf)
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
bdec...@sunm4048at.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) writes:
>Actually, the problem was that Stimson's 'context' was of gentleman
>(as opposed to rulers) from a similar culture, which wouldn't wage
>total war upon each other - in short, Vicotorian-era Anglo-Saxons.
>
>The context he was actually operating was of large, impersonal powers,
>which were ready and willing to wage total war, but would take any
>advantage that they could get, as long as the liabilities associated
>with taking the advantage didn't outweigh the advantage itself.
>
And once he realized it -- in fact, once he moved from Secretary of State to
Secretary of War, if memory serves -- he cheerfully reestablished and supported
cryptography programs, broadcast intercepts, etc.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL750.BITNET or WIN...@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 415/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
Rick Cook
>>
>I have a notion that fannishness--liking fandom and fitting with it--
>is not much more common among sf authors than it is in the general
>population. What do you think?
>
Some authors are products of fandom. Some like fans and enjoy fannish
activities. Some associate with fans as a business matter -- authors
generally agree that fans are important market leaders in SF. Some don't
deal well with them and some of those avoid fans as much as possible.
There's also a small class of authors who are rather bewildered by the
entire phenomenon.
I'd say that fannishness is more common among authors than in the general
public but that it is a long, long way from universial.
--RC
Rick Cook
>his is true under the Berne Convention, where you automatically have
>copyright to anything you write, but is it also the case under the
>American copyright laws? I would be surprised to learn that it was. It
>is my impression that you had to send a copy so some official library
>(Library of Congress?) in order to recieve copyright to anything.
>
famous cases involving authors and their biographers to support it.
Registration is not necessary to obtain copyright in the US and I am not
sure it ever was. Where registration comes into play is in assessing damage
in the event of an infringment. (Well, basically anyway.)
--RC
Rick Cook
>Almost all of this thread has been about the narrow issue of reading some
>"private" mail. Has it occurred to anyone that there may well be much
>more to this anecdote than appears and that this whole discussion,
>although interesting, may have little to do witht the "facts" as
>reported? Do we "know", for example, that this was the first meeting
>between the two?
>
was only a small part of it. He objected to having his privacy invaded by
Panshin. Or so he said on several occasions, anyway.
--RC
Zed
>In article <4c1030$t...@news-f.iadfw.net> z...@airmail.net (Zed) writes:
>>ws...@halcyon.com (W$), in a moment of visionary revalation, spewed
>>forth the following:
>>>Some people are just beyond learning the most rudimentary manners.
>>>I personally think rudeness should be a capital offense; it would help offset
>>>the population explosion, and human society would be much nicer.
>> Dear Sir,
>> I sincerely hope you were joking. If not, then
>>
>> FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU.
>> Get your ass to Singapore or some such.
>> Sincerely,
>> Russell Miller
>Dear Stupid Fool,
>The line was paraphrased from some comments by Lazarus L.. This group is
>called "alt.fan.heinlein" in case you missed it.
It's also been crossposted to rasf.w. Look at your follow up. As to
the original source of the quote, it appears irrelevant given the fact
that you seem to support it. Though it greatly diminishes my already
low regard for Bob Heinlein.
>However, since you, like the young delinquent in Singapore that was cained,
>like to spread your graffiti around for all to see, I'd happily make an
>exception to the tongue-in-check saying, and see your sort executed for real.
No doubt you would. Your disregard for human life is sickening. I
assume, if you've read outside of Heinlein, you recall the good
doctor's famous quote about violence and incompetency.
>No doubt as you post your vulgar and inane sayings while hiding behind your
>news client, you snicker with glee, and plan some new excapade involving
>torture on your neighbor's pet.
The is peurile, but still amusing in its own way. As to hiding behind
my news client, I would point out that of the two people involved, one
appended his real name to the end of his post. The other did not. I
leave it to you to distinguish the difference.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <romm-28129...@ppp-66-166.dialup.winternet.com>,
David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
>In article <aahzDKB...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
>Dancing Machine) wrote:
>> In article <4bsqns$e...@news.express.co.nz>,
>> Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >OK you got me. 4th virtual anniversary of what?
>>
>> Of the day my partner first sent me e-mail, of course.
>
>How do you celebrate? Download naughty pictures of each other? Invent
>cutsie-poo encryption passwords? Send e-mail to everyone who thought it
>wouldn't work out...
Nothing I say could possibly top what's been posted in this thread so
far.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het nipple boy
Fourth Virtual Anniversary: 2 days and counting
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Hans Rancke-Madsen <ran...@diku.dk> wrote:
>aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>
>>Side note on copyright: the possessor of a letter has the right to do
>>with it what zie will; however, the copyright still vests with the
>>author, and if someone other than the author publishes the letter, zie
>>can be sued.
>
>copyright to anything you write, but is it also the case under the
>American copyright laws? I would be surprised to learn that it was. It
>is my impression that you had to send a copy so some official library
>(Library of Congress?) in order to recieve copyright to anything.
The USA is now a signatory of the Berne Convention, and has been for
about fifteen years.
Stevens R. Miller
>> Sincerely,
>> Russell Miller
>...you post your vulgar and inane sayings while hiding behind your
>news client...
A curious supposition, when aimed at one who has signed his name, by one who
calls himself "W$" (or "CEO," as his server entry says he calls himself "In
real life.")
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Stevens R. Miller
>...being a cadet isn't at all the
>same thing as being a naval officer...
True. A midshipman, OTOH, does have something in common with naval officers.
Ulrika
writes:
>
>aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>
>>Side note on copyright: the possessor of a letter has the right to do
>>with it what zie will; however, the copyright still vests with the
>>author, and if someone other than the author publishes the letter, zie
>>can be sued.
>
>This is true under the Berne Convention, where you automatically have
>copyright to anything you write, but is it also the case under the
>American copyright laws? I would be surprised to learn that it was. It
>is my impression that you had to send a copy so some official library
>(Library of Congress?) in order to recieve copyright to anything.
Prepare to be surprised...
--Ulrika
Geoff Joy
You are correct. I looked in /Grumbles from the Grave/ and found
Virginia's comment that he never saw combat.
--
Geoff Joy - ke6qh -
Micro-Tech Engineering
http://www.deltanet.com/users/geoffj/
David Silbey
win...@SSRL01.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cm wrote:
>In article <4bsfnh$c...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>bdec...@sunm4048at.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) writes:
>
>>Actually, the problem was that Stimson's 'context' was of gentleman
>>(as opposed to rulers) from a similar culture, which wouldn't wage
>>total war upon each other - in short, Vicotorian-era Anglo-Saxons.
>>
>>The context he was actually operating was of large, impersonal powers,
>>which were ready and willing to wage total war, but would take any
>>advantage that they could get, as long as the liabilities associated
>>with taking the advantage didn't outweigh the advantage itself.
>>
>
>And once he realized it -- in fact, once he moved from Secretary of State to
>Secretary of War, if memory serves -- he cheerfully reestablished and supported
>cryptography programs, broadcast intercepts, etc.
Note also, of course, that his original remarks were made in a budgetary
context as well, and that he was fighting for State department
appropriations at a time of some austerity. Heads of governmental bodies
tend to make ridiculous assertions when they think it will increase their
appropriations.
When he shifted to the War Department, his loyalties changed, as did his
statements (or actions, in this case).
David
ررررر
David J. Silbey Duke University sil...@dircon.co.uk
P Nielsen Hayden
>Dear Stupid Fool,
>
>The line was paraphrased from some comments by Lazarus L.. This group is
>called "alt.fan.heinlein" in case you missed it.
Dear W$:
This thread was begun in rec.arts.sf.fandom, and only crossposted to
alt.fan.heinlein by later participants. Many of the people posting in it are
doing so from rec.arts.sf.fandom.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
James Logajan
: >In article <4c1030$t...@news-f.iadfw.net> z...@airmail.net (Zed) writes:
: >> FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU.
: >> Get your ass to Singapore or some such.
: Your disregard for human life is sickening. I
: assume, if you've read outside of Heinlein, you recall the good
: doctor's famous quote about violence and incompetency.
I'm not much for violence because I'm in such poor physical condition:
a shot to my head, heart, or even belly could be fatal. Therefore I try
not to antagonize anyone. Such appears not to be the case for the person
(whose real name I've spared, belatedly) posting the above to these
groups, one of which is alt.fan.heinlein. (Writing that one has a low
opinion of x to alt.fan.x is guaranteed to get one some attention, if
that is what one wants.)
While I would be inclined to generally agree that the LL quote appears to show
a low regard for human life, I also think that the responses above show
an equal disregard for human life, to wit: a life lived in emotional discord
is a life lost. A considered and thoughtful response would have been
appreciated by easily upset people like myself. I suffered nearly 2 or 3
seconds of emotional pain when I read that profanity; those are seconds
I could have lived in bliss that are now forever lost. Not to mention that
there breathes someone who has a low regard for Robert Heinlein; another
few seconds of pain! For someone who allegedly abhores violence, Zed seems
to indulge in it a lot.
While I think I understand the non-literal meaning behind the LL quote, I don't
understand what any of this has to do with this thread. Oh well.
Dave Palmer
I also think that the responses above show an equal disregard
for human life, to wit: a life lived in emotional discord
is a life lost.
Then everyone on this planet, except maybe the Dalai Lama, must be
lost.
What's wrong with emotional discord? Do you expect people's emotions
to be rational? I would guess that things would be awful boring that
way.
--dave
--
"To struggle is to live, and the fiercer the struggle the intenser the
life. Then you will have lived, and a few hours of such life are
worth years spent vegetating."
--Kropotkin
Wayne Johnson
>On the other hand, in the society posited by Heinlein, courtesy wrought
>by fear of annihilation would tend to make people listen, and express
>any disagreement in polite and respectable terms - in other words,
>attack the argument, not the arguer; debate *what* he says, not *how*
>he says it nor what you *think* he said.
Which is why I think R. Cook would be tasting vacuum within his
allotted three days on Luna.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Kevin B. O'Brien
(James Logajan), wrote:
>I suffered nearly 2 or 3
>seconds of emotional pain when I read that profanity; those are seconds
>I could have lived in bliss that are now forever lost. Not to mention that
>there breathes someone who has a low regard for Robert Heinlein; another
>few seconds of pain!
Remember, this is Usenet, where thousands of times per day we prove
that opinions are like assholes--everybody has one.
Kevin B. O'Brien
ko...@ix.netcom.com
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest." Mark Twain
Barry DeCicco
Barry
David E Romm
> dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>
> >On the other hand, in the society posited by Heinlein, courtesy wrought
> >by fear of annihilation would tend to make people listen, and express
> >any disagreement in polite and respectable terms - in other words,
> >attack the argument, not the arguer; debate *what* he says, not *how*
> >he says it nor what you *think* he said.
>
> Which is why I think R. Cook would be tasting vacuum within his
> allotted three days on Luna.
Hey now! That's unfair. Much as I've disagreed with Rick in this thread,
his posts have been free of ad hominem arguments. Unlike some others
including, apparently, yourself.
Let's get back to calling Heinlein a jerk without calling attention to our
own misbehaviors.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"The Brady Bunch is really a family of vampires."
-- Florence Henderson to Shelly Long, Tonight Show 2/13/95
David MacLean
awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) wrote:
>In article <4c0tuc$3...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
> dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>> However, the "people who
>>consider any killing for any other reason than defense of someone's life to
>>be their business" are, in actuality, making it their business for no other
>>reason than they *want* to make it their business. If the victim is unknown
>>to those people, and their is no relationship at all, why should a killing
>>be ANY of their business?
>
> Um ... civilization?
>
Depends on your definition of "civilization". I can understand why you
would find a group of people dominated by an elite who continually
impose their will on the rest to be civilization since that is all that
mankind has known, historically, as "civilization". However, "civilizations"
have existed that have had a far greater homicide rate than the U.S. and
they are still considered to have been "civilized".
Looking at it realistically, "civilization" means that a group of elites
have imposed their views on the rest, who really are unconcerned except
when that imposition directly affects them adversely.
> [snip]
>
>>Would an annoying and acerbic social critic be perpetually at risk? Yes.
>>But he/she put him/herself in that risk. To reduce the risk, all that
>>is required is to be less annoying and less acerbic - note that I did
>>not say unannoying and unacerbic.
>
> How much "less annoying"? Who makes the call?
Simple answer - the person who makes the call as to how annoying to be is
the person who is doing the annoying. Risk of immediate death would cause
most to consider the feelings of the other person moreso than is done
presently.
>If the annoying-ness
>is OK by me but not OK by you, should I ignore the fact that you
>undertook to act violently on your irritation?
If the violence was not directed at you and/or yours, the answer is "Yes",
you should ignore it.
>What about that liberal talk-show host who was assassinated by some
>right-wingers in Denver a few years ago? OK by you?
Didn't hear about it. Couldn't care less.
>
> [snip]
>
>>On the other hand, in the society posited by Heinlein, courtesy wrought
>>by fear of annihilation would tend to make people listen, and express
>>any disagreement in polite and respectable terms - in other words,
>>attack the argument, not the arguer; debate *what* he says, not *how*
>>he says it nor what you *think* he said.
>
> Honestly, to the extent that I understand the society you posit (or,
>you say Heinlein posits ... not sure to what extent you agree with him),
And is it too hard for you to ask?
>it sounds to me like the Wild, Wild West. Judge Roy Bean, and all that.
Quite true. However, it also sounds like Europe during the enlightenment,
and the golden age of Rome. Judge Roy Bean is held out as an "example"
of the wild, wild west, but in reality, he was the exception. Most "judges"
in the west were interested in justice, not personal reputation.
Judge Roy Bean stands out as the exception, not the rule. And he would
not last long in the society posited by Heinlein, since there would not
be a hired gun (sheriff or marshall) backed by a gang (posse) and all
backed up by an even larger gang (the army).
>It
>sounds not so much a recipe for courteous argument as a description of Keep
>Your Mouth Shut or I'll Kill You.
Presuming, of course, that you have the wherewithall to carry out the threat,
and you never sleep.
>
> If I've misunderstood, please enlighten me. Rather than killing me.
>
In the society posited by Heinlein, you would have less to fear from me
killing you than in today's society. The bad eggs would be quickly
exterminated. Oh, I am not saying that the implimentation would not result
in a blood bath - it would, since all restrictions other than self discipline
would be removed. But after the initial phase, the remainder would be
tough, self-reliant - and polite.
--
***************************************************************************
David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
***************************************************************************
Simon Slavin
jgif...@crl.com (James Gifford) wrote:
> Simon Slavin (sla...@entergrp.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Datapoint: The 'barbarian' quote we're throwing about is actually from
> : one of Shakespeare's plays: _Julius Caeser_, I think.
>
> Er, no. It's from Shaw.
> The Bard was not the only one to write about Caesar. :)
Short-circuit between the ear-phones, dammit.
Thanks for the correction to the first, say, six people who post one.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin - Computing Manager (not speaker) for The Enterprise Group Ltd.
Election rally: "A mixture of carnival, worship and bribery." Harry Harrison.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>
>This thread was begun in rec.arts.sf.fandom, and only crossposted to
>alt.fan.heinlein by later participants. Many of the people posting in it
are
>doing so from rec.arts.sf.fandom.
Actually, it was, I believe, started simultaneously in ra.sf.fandom and
ra.sf.written, which is where I'm reading it. It spread to alt.fan.heinlein
very early, though.
--
For information on Lawrence Watt-Evans, finger -l lawr...@clark.net
or see The Misenchanted Page at http://www.greyware.com/authors/LWE/
The Horror Writers Association Page is at http://www.horror.org/HWA/
Wayne Johnson
On Rick Cook breathing vacuum after a short period with RAH's Loonies:
>And you wouldn't, of coure?
>Barry
Shucks, Barry, I'd fit right in with the Stone Gang, or any other Mob
on the Moon. For at least a week.
I noticed that Rick came out of the box, woofing and reading minds. A
sure recipe for confrontation; the fact that his arguments have some
measure of merit is beside the point.
Of course, my more measured, analytical approach is much better, and
doubt I would ever be summarily spaced; they'd heat up a pot of
boiling oil for me, or something.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
>In article <4c2oqv$h...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) writes:
>|> dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>|>
>|>
>|> >On the other hand, in the society posited by Heinlein, courtesy wrought
>|> >by fear of annihilation would tend to make people listen, and express
>|> >any disagreement in polite and respectable terms - in other words,
>|> >attack the argument, not the arguer; debate *what* he says, not *how*
>|> >he says it nor what you *think* he said.
>|>
>|> Which is why I think R. Cook would be tasting vacuum within his
>|> allotted three days on Luna.
>|>
>|> Wayne Johnson
>|> cia...@ix.netcom.com
>|>
Wayne Johnson
>Hey now! That's unfair. Much as I've disagreed with Rick in this thread,
>his posts have been free of ad hominem arguments. Unlike some others
>including, apparently, yourself.
>Let's get back to calling Heinlein a jerk without calling attention to our
>own misbehaviors.
Piffle. Had you noted that I wasn't serious - after all, Rick's and
interesting writer and I enjoy a good brawl - you would have seen that
I offered to meet him, at dawn, his choice of weapons. I even
apologized for shooting his second for blowing his nose on his sleeve.
Such foolishness brings our discussion from ad hominem personal
attack, into the realm of fantasy and satire. Rest assured, if the
Loonies ever toss Rick out of an airlock, he'll probably land on top
of me.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Ben Yalow
>Rick Cook wrote:
>>
>> Proving once again that your vision of a gentleman and Heinlein's don't
>> match. Further, that some people's customs are different from you own.
>>
>> Shocking, I know. But there it is.
>I must admit I'm curious, though -- when did you read Heinlein's mind,
>that you "know" what he thought on these issues? Others, faced with the
>same set of information, seem to have reached different conclusions.
>Could it possibly be that you're extending your OWN social code over what
>you BELIEVE you know of Heinlein's?
Actually, I don't believe Rick needs to make any such assumption.
Consider the following logic chain:
1. Heinlein believed that he was a gentleman, and would act in a manner
that he thought was appropriate for a gentleman.
2. Heinlein refused to accept Panshin's attempt at an apology.
3. Therefore, Heinlein believed that there would be circumstances under
which it is appropriate for a gentleman not to accept an apology.
4. You, and some others, do not believe that Heinlein's behaviour in
refusing to accept the apology was appropriate.
5. If you accept (1), then (3), which contradicts (4).
Therefore, you don't accept (1), which is what Rick appears to be asserting.
>--
>Loren J. MacGregor -- lmac...@greenheart.com
>--Technical & Fictional Writing and Editing--
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Rick Cook
>Seems to me he served less than 5 years before he was invalided out;
>can't remember now if 1929 was his graduation or his invaliding. Add
>to that 4 years at Annapolis (though being a cadet isn't at all the
>same thing as being a naval officer, socially). And the incident
>under discussion took place in the 70s; so he'd spent a large majority
>of his life as a civillian at that point.
As I recall he was invalidided out sometime in the 1930s ('34-'36??)
however the point still holds. His experience as a naval cadet and officer
had a major on him. During those years he was living by someone else's code
-- a code which did not allow for refusing to deal with a fellow officer,
among other things.
--RC
jim grunst
Wv and later, Bossier City La..... anyone know Kathy and J.M.'s current
whereabouts?
Thanx in advance!
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>On the other hand, in the society posited by Heinlein, courtesy wrought
>by fear of annihilation would tend to make people listen, and express
>any disagreement in polite and respectable terms - in other words,
>attack the argument, not the arguer; debate *what* he says, not *how*
>he says it nor what you *think* he said.
It's a very neat trick, to know what somebody else said rather than
what I *think* he said.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>If the violence was not directed at you and/or yours, the answer is "Yes",
>you should ignore it.
Well, that's no problem then. "Any man's death dimishes me, for I am
involved in Mankind." Or are you some kind of bigot who thinks I
should care only about people who are "like me"?
>In the society posited by Heinlein, you would have less to fear from me
>killing you than in today's society. The bad eggs would be quickly
>exterminated. Oh, I am not saying that the implimentation would not result
>in a blood bath - it would, since all restrictions other than self discipline
>would be removed. But after the initial phase, the remainder would be
>tough, self-reliant - and polite.
"An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
>Consider the following logic chain:
>
>1. Heinlein believed that he was a gentleman, and would act in a manner
>that he thought was appropriate for a gentleman.
>2. Heinlein refused to accept Panshin's attempt at an apology.
>3. Therefore, Heinlein believed that there would be circumstances under
>which it is appropriate for a gentleman not to accept an apology.
>4. You, and some others, do not believe that Heinlein's behaviour in
>refusing to accept the apology was appropriate.
>5. If you accept (1), then (3), which contradicts (4).
>Therefore, you don't accept (1), which is what Rick appears to be asserting.
Nope; try formulating all that in modal logic (which you need to
handle the "belief" part) and you'll see the error.
Heinlein was wrong in what actions he believed were appropriate for a
gentleman. Thus, I accept 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
Geoff Joy <geo...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>One thing that no-one seems to have noted is that Heinlein's reaction
>may not have been due to feelings that HIS privacy was invaded, but
>Heinlein may have felt that Smith's privacy was being compromised.
Huh? As I understand things (garnered only from this thread), Panshin
wrote to Smith to ask him about Heinlein. Smith's widow sent
Heinlein's letters in return.
A few years ago, somebody interviewed me about Stallman, for a (book?
article? something-or-other) he was writing about RMS. In no way did
I feel _my_ privacy was being invaded. (Nor even Stallman's, because
I wouldn't say anything that I felt violated his privacy.)
Seth
Seth Breidbart
>Registration is not necessary to obtain copyright in the US and I am not
>sure it ever was. Where registration comes into play is in assessing damage
>in the event of an infringment. (Well, basically anyway.)
Registration (before publication) _was_ necessary, up until 1976 (I
think that's the correct date). If there was no publication,
registration was unnecessary.
The first US edition of Tolkien was published without permission (or
royalties) because the copyright had been lost (due, I think, to too
many copies of the British editions being imported).
Seth
Matt Hickman
<snip>
>Let's get back to calling Heinlein a jerk without calling attention to our
>own misbehaviors.
Actually, attacking the character of someone who is deceased seems most
unsporting, Perhaps Panshin is a better target, still alive AFAIK--although not
known to interact on USENET--so perhaps only a slightly more sporting target.
It seems to me that although Panshin may have brought some critical tools
to _Heinlein in Dimension_, but he used them without skill or insight. The
Heinlein that Panshin constructed in his mind and analysed in his book bore
only a cursory resemblence to the real writer. This is also true of his treatment
of Murray Leinster (Will Jenkins).
Panshin did not spend a lot of time on Leinster. Rather, he dismisses the man
out of hand. IIRC, to Panshin, Leinster was the embodiment of the pulp hack.
Yet Leinster's contributions to the field of SF are more significant than Panshin's.
Panshin's Thurb books, while the writing style was pleasant and engaging, was
essentially fluff, there was nothing of substance there. Compare this to Leinster's
Med Ship or Exploration Team stories and you will find Leinster worked with ideas.
Or compare Panshin's _Rite of Passage_ with Leinster's _Forgotten Planet_.
Panshin's work is entirely derivitive while Leinster shows originality.
Leinster's SF writing career lasted around fifty years and survived the
_Astounding_ revolution of the early forties as well as the 'death' of SF in the
late fifties and early sixties. And Panshin's? Saying it lasted a decade might
be generous. Nor did the volume of Panshin's SF while writing approach Leinster's.
And while Leinster was a bona-fide inventor (did he get an Oscar for developing
the Leinster projector and his contributions to the blue screen technigue?)
Panshin's contributions to society outside writing SF are more literary than
practical.
Using Panshin's own criteria of volume, quality, popularity and influence, Leinster
surpasses Panshin. Perhaps Panshin should have concentrated on apologizing to
Leinster first before trying to apologise Heinlein?
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
Meade sniffed as she climbed the to the dock.
What's that funny smell Hazel?
Fresh air. Odd stuff, isn't it?
- Robert A. Heinlein _The Rolling Stones_
David E Romm
> In <romm-30129...@ppp-66-72.dialup.winternet.com>,
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
> <snip>
> >Let's get back to calling Heinlein a jerk without calling attention to our
> >own misbehaviors.
>
> Actually, attacking the character of someone who is deceased seems most
> unsporting, Perhaps Panshin is a better target, still alive
AFAIK--although not
> known to interact on USENET--so perhaps only a slightly more sporting target.
So if Panshin dies Heinlein's defenders have to shut up? Heinlein is a
guy, after all, who authorized a postumous book of grumblings. He knew
people would talk about him after he left this mortal warpdrive coil.
> It seems to me that although Panshin may have brought some critical tools
> to _Heinlein in Dimension_, but he used them without skill or insight.
Quite a bit of this discussion centers around similar comments. Accusing
Panshin of being a bad critic is irrelevant to the contention that
Heinlein was a jerk on a different subject.
> The
> Heinlein that Panshin constructed in his mind and analysed in his book bore
> only a cursory resemblence to the real writer. This is also true of his
> treatment of Murray Leinster (Will Jenkins).
I'm glad you started another thread to talk about this. (And follow-up
comments on the Heinlein part should be put back into the original
thread.) I haven't read either of Panshin's critical works discussed
here, so I won't comment on your review.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Of course I'm dead. I'm just not paying for the party."
-- Forest Whitaker, Lush Life
Gary Farber
: "An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
: various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
Yes, this theory has proved itself in Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan,
Bosnia, Rwanda, Lebanon, and so many other places, including US inner
cities. But they probably haven't had time to "settle out."
And they probably haven't read Heinlein enough. That's their problem.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Rick Cook
>
>Such foolishness brings our discussion from ad hominem personal
>attack, into the realm of fantasy and satire. Rest assured, if the
>Loonies ever toss Rick out of an airlock, he'll probably land on top
>of me.
>
--RC
David MacLean
awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) wrote:
[deltia]
>
> You know, I'm convinced. Were you to begin a magazine on this
>subject, I believe I would take a subscription. I think being ankle deep in
>blood is a small price to pay for a little consideration, *especially* when
>the alternative is having to be dominated by an elite.
>
In your sarcasm, you point out the real reason why you do not understand
Heinlein. Heinlein has stated, explicitly and implicitedly, that there
are some things more valuable than life itself.
I'm afraid that until you find something more important to you than your
own life, you will never understand Heinlein - or the founding fathers
of the United States.
[deletia]
>
> I've noticed this about several of the elite who I now (you'll be glad
>to know) count among my *former* friends. At first I thought not returning
>their phone calls would be enough to discourage their continued attentions,
>but soon I realized that would be impolite of me which, of course, would mean
>that I would have to be killed. In the spirit of conviviality, I killed them
>instead. :)
>
Actually, you would probably do mankind a favor if you had done such a thing,
but in order to do it, you would have to have opportunity. I'm afraid
that I just do not believe that you ever knew an elite, let alone
counting that person as a *former* friend.
[deletia]
>>Simple answer - the person who makes the call as to how annoying to be is
>>the person who is doing the annoying. Risk of immediate death would cause
>>most to consider the feelings of the other person moreso than is done
>>presently.
>
> Oops! Bit of a difference of opinion here! Hope I won't have to be
>killed! :)
>
Do you actually believe that all differences of opinion would be solved by
killing?
> Wait. No. Now that I think of it, I think I might be being a little
>bit too forward here. I take it back. I agree with you completely :)
>(You're right! It's easy as soon as you see the light!)
>
Oh no. You would probably not be in danger, since it is quite obvious that
you only express yourself the way that you do because you believe that
"society" will protect you from those whom you annoy. Remove that protection
and you would become meek as a lamb.
In the society posited by Heinlein in tMiaHM, it would take courage to
express disagreement with a firmly held view, and wisdom to it it in
such a manner as to not arouse killing fury.
Moving you into the situation described in tMiaHM, I don't think you
would live your life radically different than the way you live it now;
you'd just be quieter.
[deletia]
> Right. Right. Just keep thinking "Kitty Genovese, Kitty Genovese..."
>
I find that I have to refuse this guilt trip. When Kitty Genovese was
killed in New York City, I was in Edmonton, and had not yet reached double
digits in age.
In fact, if a similar event had happened in Heinlein's L. City, a mob
would have ripped the attacker apart at the first whimper and deposited
him out the nearest airlock.
Say, did you actually read tMiaHM?
> I'll get the hang of this yet! :)
>
Not likely. It requires a flexability of mind that you have so far
not generated.
>>>What about that liberal talk-show host who was assassinated by some
>>>right-wingers in Denver a few years ago? OK by you?
>>
>>Didn't hear about it. Couldn't care less.
>
> Well, he was probably just an old rude-nik anyway.
>
Irrelevant. I never heard of him. Didn't listen to him. His death affects
me not in the slightest. Whether he lived or died makes not the slightest
difference in my life. It would be a different story if he were family
or friend, and I do not have the slightest idea of the motivation of
the killer. Perhaps this person deserved killing. Perhaps not. If not,
his family and friends will avenge him.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>On the other hand, in the society posited by Heinlein, courtesy wrought
>>>>by fear of annihilation would tend to make people listen, and express
>>>>any disagreement in polite and respectable terms - in other words,
>>>>attack the argument, not the arguer; debate *what* he says, not *how*
>>>>he says it nor what you *think* he said.
>>>
>>> Honestly, to the extent that I understand the society you posit
>(or,
>>>you say Heinlein posits ... not sure to what extent you agree with him),
>>
>>And is it too hard for you to ask?
>
> Well, no, not too *hard*. Just, you know, a little bit too
>nerve-wracking. :)
>
Then why continue the conversation? If my *words* are nerve-wracking, then
how do you react to the actions of your government?
>>>It
>>>sounds not so much a recipe for courteous argument as a description of Keep
>>>Your Mouth Shut or I'll Kill You.
>>
>>Presuming, of course, that you have the wherewithall to carry out the threat,
>>and you never sleep.
>
> Ah, I see. I only need to be polite to people who know how to sling a
>gun, or handle a shiv. That simplifies things even more! :)
>
You forgot about sleeping. While it takes some expertise to sling a gun
or handle a shiv, it takes no expertise to bash your brains out with a
brick while you sleep. And the person that does not know how to handle
either a gun or a knife? Well, he may not know how, but his friend might.
The result is that you need to be polite to *everyone*. I can see why
you feel the need to simplify the matter.
>>> If I've misunderstood, please enlighten me. Rather than killing
>>>me.
>
>>In the society posited by Heinlein, you would have less to fear from me
>>killing you than in today's society. The bad eggs would be quickly
>>exterminated. Oh, I am not saying that the implimentation would not result
>>in a blood bath
>
> Well, but really that's neither here nor there.
>
>- it would, since all restrictions other than self discipline
>>would be removed.
>
> Wait ... I don't get how self-discipline has anything to do with it.
>I thought it was a matter of living in abject terror...? Oh, well, never
>mind. I'm sure I'll understand better once my magazines start coming.
>
That's the trouble - you are ridiculing a philosophy that you do not
understand. Only if you insist on doing things that others find aggrevious
would you live in abject terror. If you are polite, treat others with
respect, and do not violate others senses of propriety, you would live
in less fear than you do right now. Fear getting mugged? Those muggers
would be the first to go in L. City. Fear that your house will be
broken into. Burglars would be gone.
In fact, anybody who acts without regard for the propriety of others would
either learn to respect others (quickly) or they would be dead. Either way,
the people who have no self-discipline and no regard for the life and
beliefs of others will be eliminated - rapidly.
What have laws done? Basically, they constrain the vast majority of those
of us who would not commit the criminal act in the first place, while
lulling us into a sense of security because if we behave in this fashion,
we expect everybody else to, and if they don't, "the law" will punish them.
And it encourages anti-social behavior, since instead of fearing retribution
from anyone that they violate, the anti-socials only need fear a minute
segment of the populace; the rest take on the appearance of sheep.
> But after the initial phase, the remainder would be
>>tough, self-reliant - and polite.
>
> Heil manners! :)
>
If you say so. However, manners are not something to be scorned. Manners
are a social lubricant used to smooth the action when people rub together.
Those who scorn manners throw sand into the social machinery that doesn't
work perfectly at the best of times (Thanks to tNoLL)
David MacLean
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <4c41l1$m...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>you should ignore it.
>
>involved in Mankind." Or are you some kind of bigot who thinks I
>should care only about people who are "like me"?
>
Beautiful words, but totally impractical. There are over 5 billion people
in the world. Over 100 million of these people die each year, and that
is a very conservative estimate. Since there are no demonstable cases of
immortality, it is a pretty safe assumption that everybody currently living
will eventually die. Are you saying that each and every one of those deaths
will diminish you? Are you saying that each of thosedeaths diminishes you?
If that were true, you would be so diminished as to be unable to express an
opinion at all.
For all I know, that before mentioned radio talk-show host was "like me",
yet his death does not diminish me in the slightest. So when you attempt
to brand me a "bigot", it is not for what I have said, but for what you
*think* that I have said. And your perceptions are overshadowed by your
beliefs.
And one of those beliefs is that poetry should govern rather than pragmatism.
Heinlein stated in ST that any government system should be based on what
mankind *is*, not what the governors think that mankind *should be*.
I have no objections to a government guiding the populace from what they
are to what they should be, but that implies first knowing what they are
and a plan to get from what they are to what they should be.
Too many times, the poets think of what the "people" (bless their hearts)
should be, devise a system that would work only when the people are
what they should be, then attempt to impose that system believing that
the people will automatically become what they should be.
And all too many times, they totally dismiss the notion that what they
believe mankind should be can conflict with with anyone else's notion
of what mankind should be. Marx's view of what mankind should be differs
from Adam Smith's view of what mankind should be. Neither started from
what mankind *is*.
>>In the society posited by Heinlein, you would have less to fear from me
>>killing you than in today's society. The bad eggs would be quickly
>>exterminated. Oh, I am not saying that the implimentation would not result
>>in a blood bath - it would, since all restrictions other than self discipline
>>would be removed. But after the initial phase, the remainder would be
>>tough, self-reliant - and polite.
>
>"An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
>various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
>
1. Eastern Europe was NOT an armed society. Armament was concentrated
in the hands of the elite, and the police and army that backed them.
The populace was disarmed.
2. It is obvious that you were never in an eastern European society before
the fall of communism. They were polite, and none would disagree with
the notion that the populace was polite. They might point out that some
people in power were not polite, but the general populace was polite.
David MacLean
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <4c0tuc$3...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, in the society posited by Heinlein, courtesy wrought
>>by fear of annihilation would tend to make people listen, and express
>>any disagreement in polite and respectable terms - in other words,
>>attack the argument, not the arguer; debate *what* he says, not *how*
>>he says it nor what you *think* he said.
>
>what I *think* he said.
>
No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
Of course, I can understand why you would think that it would be a "neat
trick". I thought determining the area of a closed curve was a "neat
trick" before I took calculus. Now, it is not a trick, it's a tool.
Dr Gafia
dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) writes:
>
>In article <lex.752....@interport.net>
>l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) wrote:
>>>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>>>: Heinlein had a streak of MYOB a mile wide...
>>"MYOB"?
>Information, not a demand - initialese for Mind Your Own Business.
From Eric Frank Russell's "And Then There Were None," which most
people I know recognize as being as philosophically as anti-
Heinlein as any early ASTOUNDING story could have been.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
David Langford
[regarding Heinlein's time in the Navy ...]
>As I recall he was invalidided out sometime in the 1930s ('34-'36??)
>however the point still holds. His experience as a naval cadet and officer
>had a major on him.
Tut! A true gentleman would not publicly discuss another gentleman's
positional preferences. Especially in a mixed-rank relationship.
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Keith Kushner
: Heinlein may have felt that Smith's privacy was being compromised.
: Heinlein was a military man, Smith was also. Both of them were combat
: veterans.
Indeed? And just which war - or unwar - was Heinlein a veteran of?
--
* Keith Kushner * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal *
* myc...@dorsai.dorsai.org * *
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> As I recall he was invalidided out sometime in the 1930s ('34-'36??)[snip]
Academy: 1925-1929
Service: 1929-1934
--
Ahasuerus http://www.clark.net/pub/ahasuer/, including:
FAQs: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.fan.heinlein, alt.pulp, the Liaden Universe
Biblios: how to write SF, the Wandering Jew, miscellaneous SF
Please consider posting (as opposed to e-mailing) ID requests
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> "An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
> various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
Well, there are two separate issues here. First, there is the issue of E
European experience between 1945 and 1990, when *individuals* were not
armed but the government and, in some cases, foreign occupiers, were.
Second, there is the question of assorted post-Communist conflicts in E
Europe, most prominently in the former Yugoslavia and in Moldova. But it
remains to be proved that "the Dnestr Republic" or "the Serb Republic"
are part of the Moldovan or Bosnian societies, respectively, at least in
the sense presumably implied in the quote above. A new thread, maybe?
Rick Cook
>Heinlein was wrong in what actions he believed were appropriate for a
>gentleman. Thus, I accept 1, 2, 3, and 4.
>
appropiate for a gentleman under those circumstances.
Whether this meets your definition of 'gentleman', or mine, is another
matter entirely.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>Registration (before publication) _was_ necessary, up until 1976 (I
>think that's the correct date). If there was no publication,
>registration was unnecessary.
The copyright law changed in 1976, yes. I'm really only familar with the
law after 1976, although if it becomes a point I think I have a couple of
pre-76 books around here on the subject.
>The first US edition of Tolkien was published without permission (or
>royalties) because the copyright had been lost (due, I think, to too
>many copies of the British editions being imported).
Again, correct.
--RC
Rick Cook
>It seems to me that although Panshin may have brought some critical tools
>Heinlein that Panshin constructed in his mind and analysed in his book bore
>treatment of Murray Leinster (Will Jenkins).
When did Panshin deal with Murray Leinster? I missed that and I'd like to
see what he had to say.
>And while Leinster was a bona-fide inventor (did he get an Oscar for
>developing the Leinster projector and his contributions to the blue screen
>technigue?)
What Leinster was involved in was the front-projection technique, not blue
screen. He described the process in an article in Analog back in the 1960s.
I don't know if he invented it or helped perfect it.
--RC
Timothy Morris
>This is true under the Berne Convention,
The U.S. has been a signatory for several years, now.
Bob Webber
dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca writes:
>>It's a very neat trick, to know what somebody else said rather than
>>what I *think* he said.
>
>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
But even then, you may think you know what he said, but really you
know what you think he said. You're just biased in favour of thinking
you can think without bias.
>Of course, I can understand why you would think that it would be a "neat
>trick". I thought determining the area of a closed curve was a "neat
>trick" before I took calculus. Now, it is not a trick, it's a tool.
Takes one to know one.
Bob
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4c41l1$m...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>If the violence was not directed at you and/or yours, the answer is "Yes",
>>you should ignore it.
>
>Well, that's no problem then. "Any man's death dimishes me, for I am
>involved in Mankind." Or are you some kind of bigot who thinks I
>should care only about people who are "like me"?
Somewhere RAH goes into this question in detail (anyone remember which
book)? He says that the first duty of an individual is to oneself, then
to one's immediate family, then to the immediate community you live in,
then to the country you live in and finally to humanity as a whole. But
then he says that outside of this there is another, superior moral code
followed only by a few, which puts humanity first. He gives as a shining
example the tramp who, on finding a woman with her leg trapped under a
railway line went on trying to free her and deliberately ignored the
oncoming train which subsequently killed them both. (I probably haven't
done justice to what RAH was saying here as I'm going solely from
memory).
>"An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
>various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
What Eastern European societies are armed (I mean the civilian
population, not military and paramilitary groups of course)?
A better counter-example to this proposition would have to be the United
States.
David MacLean
Bob Webber <web...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <4c783u$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> David MacLean,
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca writes:
>>>It's a very neat trick, to know what somebody else said rather than
>>>what I *think* he said.
>>
>>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
>>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
>
>But even then, you may think you know what he said, but really you
>know what you think he said. You're just biased in favour of thinking
>you can think without bias.
>
Please don't start a Zeno's paradox with the English language. Such an
infinite series converges. Reference to a dictionary will give the
denotation. If your opponent misuses the language, it is permissible
to ask for clarification, as it is for the equivocative use of a term.
Replacing emotion laden terms with ones that are not will give the
gist of what was said.
>>Of course, I can understand why you would think that it would be a "neat
>>trick". I thought determining the area of a closed curve was a "neat
>>trick" before I took calculus. Now, it is not a trick, it's a tool.
>
>Takes one to know one.
Equivocative use of a term. Clarification requested.
David MacLean
Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>In article <4c41l1$m...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>If the violence was not directed at you and/or yours, the answer is "Yes",
>>>you should ignore it.
>>
>>Well, that's no problem then. "Any man's death dimishes me, for I am
>>involved in Mankind." Or are you some kind of bigot who thinks I
>>should care only about people who are "like me"?
>
>Somewhere RAH goes into this question in detail (anyone remember which
>book)? He says that the first duty of an individual is to oneself, then
>to one's immediate family, then to the immediate community you live in,
>then to the country you live in and finally to humanity as a whole. But
>then he says that outside of this there is another, superior moral code
>followed only by a few, which puts humanity first. He gives as a shining
>example the tramp who, on finding a woman with her leg trapped under a
>railway line went on trying to free her and deliberately ignored the
>oncoming train which subsequently killed them both. (I probably haven't
>done justice to what RAH was saying here as I'm going solely from
>memory).
Actually, if memory serves, it was in the address to the class of the
Naval Academy, reproduced in Expanded Universe.
>
>>"An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
>>various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
>
>What Eastern European societies are armed (I mean the civilian
>population, not military and paramilitary groups of course)?
>
>A better counter-example to this proposition would have to be the United
>States.
Actually, while true in fact, it violates the spirit of the statement,
because while it is easier to get arms in the States, it is not true
that the States are an "armed society". If it were, the name Bernard
Goetz (sp?) would not ring any bells. He was the exception, and not
the rule.
David MacLean
arro...@peregrine.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4c783m$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>In the society posited by Heinlein in tMiaHM, it would take courage to
>>express disagreement with a firmly held view, and wisdom to it it in
>>such a manner as to not arouse killing fury.
>
>the wrong religion? After all, such people are often the targets of killing
>fury even in the real world.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me as if the Nazi's could not have
marched the Jews into the gas chambers if they knew that each Jew was armed
and was willing to blow someone away if the attempt was made.
And it seems to me that the night riders of the Ku Klux Klan would be a
trifle more hesitant at attempting to lynch someone when they were pretty
sure that that someone was armed and willing to use his weapon.
No, it would not take courage to posses the "wrong" skin color, but it
certainly would take courage to persecute someone because they had that
"wrong" skin color.
And it has always taken courage to be a member of the "wrong" religion, but
in Heinlein's world, it would take even more courage to persecute someone
for it.
And I find that very few, if any, bigots are courageous.
>You can't very well argue that nobody will be prejudiced in such ways because
>it could backfire on their own lives--historically, it _didn't_.
Historically, there has never been a society in which everyone was armed
evenly. It has always been the elite and their allies (stooges) who held
the greater amount of force.
>About the
>best you can do is claim that in such a society everyone will magically be
>nice people. To which I respond that if you can postulate that the society
>is already full of nice people, rules are irrelevant; rules have to be able
>to work when things are not in your favor.
Nothing magical about it Ken. You are either nice - or you're dead.
There is a difference between *being* nice, which your postulate calls
for, and behaving in a nice manner. Even the worst rogue can behave
nicely when it is to his/her advantage.
David MacLean
arro...@peregrine.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4c783s$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Heinlein stated in ST that any government system should be based on what
>>mankind *is*, not what the governors think that mankind *should be*.
>>Too many times, the poets think of what the "people" (bless their hearts)
>>should be, devise a system that would work only when the people are
>>what they should be, then attempt to impose that system believing that
>>the people will automatically become what they should be.
>
>to easily kill people for insults.
>
>And I only saw it one article too late.
>
>If you assume that people are as they really are--that they can be irrational,
>prejudiced, arbitrary--a society where you can kill people for insults would
>be a nightmare. If you assume that people are reasonable, it'll work--but
>that's not how mankind *is*, and *should be* doesn't work.
>
You make one assumption that is false to fact. You say that people can
be irrational, prejudiced, and arbitrary, which is true in only one sense.
However, because *some* people can be irrational, prejudiced and arbitrary,
you imply that *all* people are unreasonable.
Mankind, as a group, is not unreasonable. Some individuals who belong to the
the group that we call mankind certainly are. But even in the greatest
conflagration the world has ever known, World War II, the vast majority
of mankind did no fighting.
Once again, you are positing mankind as it *should* be, but this time,
in the negative sense, ie, what it should *not* be. For the vast majority
of mankind, Heinlein's system would make little, if any, difference in
their day to day quest to feed themselves and their families. The people
who would be involved in the initial blood bath would be precisely
those people who the system would not work for - the irrational,
the prejudiced, and the arbitrary.
>Incidentally, weren't blacks in the South before the civil rights movement
>rather polite too? (Of course, servility implies politeness.)
But of course. Politeness would be the result of fear, but I never
claimed otherwise. However, just because servility implies politeness,
and fear implies politeness, does not mean that the relationship is
transitive, ie, fear does NOT imply servility, which you are attempting
to imply with the above example.
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>arro...@peregrine.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
>
>>Would it also take courage to possess the wrong skin color or be a member of
>>the wrong religion? After all, such people are often the targets of killing
>>fury even in the real world.
>
>>best you can do is claim that in such a society everyone will magically be
>>nice people. To which I respond that if you can postulate that the society
>>is already full of nice people, rules are irrelevant; rules have to be able
>>to work when things are not in your favor.
>
>natural result of such a bloody world - he says it is a society of
>wolves.
Ah, but what did he think of wolves?
>People live in a state of perpetual violence, not perpetual
>peace.
>
Nonsense. In Beyond this Horizon, people lived in constant *preparedness*
for violence, not in perpetual violence.
>I find it interesting that most comments on this thread concentrate on
>The Moon is a Harsh Mistress; the Loonies had a more organized code,
>and even sat jury style for decisions on the fate of transgressors of
>the norms.
Yes they did, but such trials were so uncommon that Judge Brody was the
ONLY judge that made a living by judging alone. As Heinlein stated,
all others at the very least were bookies or sold insurance.
The "trial" of Stuart Rene Lejoie has been pointed out before in this
thread, but the people who mention this are universal in ignoring
the stilyagi Air Defense drill where they took a heckler outside the
newly constructed temporary airlock and deposited him, sans P-suit,
on the surface of the moon. There was no trial. And what about
Howard Wright, the Liaison for Arts, Sciences, and Professions"?
When Mannie says, "Nevers saw Wright again. I mean I *never* saw him
again.", this clearly implies that Wright was eliminated, again without
trial.
And "judge" in L. City clearly does not imply the same thing as "judge"
in the U.S. When the policy of Judge Brody, the most successful
judge in L. City, was "If two people brought a quarrel to Brody
and he could not get them to agree that his settlement was just, he would
return fees and, if they fought, referee their duel without charging -
and still be trying to persuade them not to use knives right up to
squaring off", it would seem that judges in L. City had no power to
enforce their decisions. At best, they were mediators, someone to
turn to in the event that you weren't quite sure that you were right
in the dispute.
And sitting "jury style" is just a matter of equivocation, since Mannie
made it quite clear at Stuart's trial that if the jury rendered a
decision that was not to his liking, he would ignore it. This
certainly does not sound like the "jury style" that we are familiar
with.
Again, it was quite clear that jury trials, though they existed, were
not the "norm". Most "justice" was dispensed summarily by individuals
acting in their own self interest.
>It's in Heinlein's earliest work that he delves into the
>violent psyche of the individual, freed of constraints, who can take
>offense at whatever he pleases and demand "satisfaction".
>
It is also in his earliest works where he delves into the how the
violent psyche of the individual imposes its own constraints in the
face of the violent psyches of others.
>Anyone who watched the phenomenal film Ridley Scott film "The
>Duellists" (there's your Heinlein director) can see graphically a very
>realistic portrait of the type of world this can create; with the
>physically gifted freely murdering less talented "offenders", and free
>reign given to prejudices and ignoble actions of all sorts.
>
Sorry, Wayne, but in the duelist, we are shown the intertwining of
two soldiers in Napoleon's army who are equal in skill as shown by
their similar career paths and the length of time each segment of
the continuing duel lasted. The one from whose point of view the
film is shown is the "good little boy" who does not want to violate
the external constraints against duelling imposed by Napoleon. The
reason that the duel lasts a life time (or a goodly portion thereof)
is that our hero does his best to avoid the duel with the bully, not
because of fear of the bully, but because of fear of his superiors.
Each and every time the fray is entered into, outside authority intervenes,
and the duelists are parted.
Each progresses in his career until they are Marshalls in the French
army. The bully sides with Napoleon when he returns from exile,
thus shattering his career. But the bully could not be as bad
as the film made him out to be, since such men do not have the
talent to rise from legate to Marshall.
But take away that external constraint that our hero felt compelled to
follow. Result: the first duel would have been the last - end of film.
BTW, the "physically gifted freely murdering" the less talented happened
only in the beginning of the film to show that the villian was in fact
a villain. Nowhere does it show him doing this after he engaged in the
beginning of the duel with our hero. In fact, considering that he
made Marshall in Napoleon's army, and Napoleon himself had ordered a
stop to duelling, it seems unlikely that such a man could continuously
violate an order from the emperor himself and still be promoted to a
rank that Napoleon himself would have had to decide on.
Oh, and just for the record, the villian turned out to be an honorable
man, since it seems that our hero had no concern about him violating
the conditions placed after he had lost the duel. Query: how could
a black hearted scoundrel be such an honorable man?
Douglas H. Borsom
dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
...
> Too many times, the poets think of what the "people" (bless their hearts)
> should be, devise a system that would work only when the people are
> what they should be, then attempt to impose that system believing that
> the people will automatically become what they should be.
...
But then Heinlein's books are works of *fiction,* and in the large
sense of the word, Heinlein is a poet.
While some readers embrace his make-believe societies, others question
whether it isn't Heinlein who, in the context of these fictional societies,
presents people as they should be (in Heinlein's mind), rather than as they
really are.
Anyone care to nominate actual societies, current or historical, that they
believe closely parallel the armed and polite society of _Beyond this
Horizon_ or _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, or of the society portrayed
in _Starship Troopers_?
-doug
Chris Croughton
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
> Surely, in the annals of unixia, it is recorded who the miscreant was
^^^^^^
You misspelt 'anals'. Hope this helps.
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4c8eln$l...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>
>>It's really in Beyond This Horizon that Heinlein delves into the
>>natural result of such a bloody world - he says it is a society of
>>wolves.
>
>Ah, but what did he think of wolves?
Not wolves really, as wolves have no choice about whether to be wolves,
but in BTH people had the choice of whether to go armed or whether to
wear a 'peace badge' which indicated the wearer was not armed and would
not fight, in which case it was forbidden to challenge him or attack him.
More to the point, what did he think of anarchy? I think that is really
what the vigilante justice in TMiaHM was about, as anarchy was a central
theme of the book and a necessary corollary of a functional anarchy is
the willingness of its citizens to maintain decent standards of behaviour
by force. RAH's views on that are spelt out in some detail in his
interview with Neil Schumann (available on James Giford's Heinlein page
if you're interested). He says there that it is an admirable ideal but
he suspects that in any society which is not extremely small in size a
certain amount of government is probably a necessary evil. Even in
TMiaHM the 'good-guy' anarchists (Manny and Prof) don't get the free
society they want in the end, and Manny is left wondering if 'food riots
are too high a price to pay for letting people be', i.e. if their
anarchistic ideals were really workable.
In short, I suspect RAH *liked the idea* of a society such as he
described, but didn't really believe it would work.
>>I find it interesting that most comments on this thread concentrate on
>>The Moon is a Harsh Mistress; the Loonies had a more organized code,
>>and even sat jury style for decisions on the fate of transgressors of
>>the norms.
>
>Yes they did, but such trials were so uncommon that Judge Brody was the
>ONLY judge that made a living by judging alone. As Heinlein stated,
>all others at the very least were bookies or sold insurance.
>
>The "trial" of Stuart Rene Lejoie has been pointed out before in this
>thread, but the people who mention this are universal in ignoring
>the stilyagi Air Defense drill where they took a heckler outside the
>newly constructed temporary airlock and deposited him, sans P-suit,
>on the surface of the moon. There was no trial. And what about
>Howard Wright, the Liaison for Arts, Sciences, and Professions"?
>When Mannie says, "Nevers saw Wright again. I mean I *never* saw him
>again.", this clearly implies that Wright was eliminated, again without
>trial.
Yes. I think the setup was that if the accusers weren't completely sure
of the impropriety of a person's actions they called in a judge to decide
on the matter in order to avoid starting a vendetta with the accused's
relatives. But if they *were* completely sure then he just got pushed
outside, (or beaten up if the offence didn't warrant death).
>>It's in Heinlein's earliest work that he delves into the
>>violent psyche of the individual, freed of constraints, who can take
>>offense at whatever he pleases and demand "satisfaction".
>>
>
>It is also in his earliest works where he delves into the how the
>violent psyche of the individual imposes its own constraints in the
>face of the violent psyches of others.
>
Exactly. He addresses both the killer side of humanity and the social
side. He was by several accounts an expert swordsman as well as a
veteran of the armed services, so it's hardly surprising that armed
combat is a central theme in many of his works. But he never glories in
violence for its own sake and always puts it firmly in a social context
and exposes it to moral scrutiny.
Dr Gafia
(Matt Hickman) writes:
<<snip>>
>The Heinlein that Panshin constructed in his mind and analysed in
>his book bore only a cursory resemblance to the real writer. This
>is also true of his treatment of Murray Leinster (Will Jenkins)
>
>Panshin did not spend a lot of time on Leinster. Rather, he
>dismisses the man out of hand. IIRC, to Panshin, Leinster was the
>embodiment of the pulp hack. Yet Leinster's contributions to the
>field of SF are more significant than Panshin's.
O, Lordy, I don't think I've ever heard a more idiotic argument. A
relative judgment and one I'm not sure I agree with, but even if true,
what point are you trying to make and how is Panshin's "contributions"
to the field of sf--whether greater than, the same as or less than
Leinster's--relevant to the insight Panshin brings to bear on the work
of Leinster?
>Panshin's Thurb books, while the writing style was pleasant and
>engaging, was essentially fluff, there was nothing of substance
>there.
Asimov, who had no marked writing style, wins some of his acclaim
from writing cross-genre books--combining sf and the mystery in his
R. Daneel Olivaw series. Shouldn't Alexei win a little critical
acclaim for combining sf with the regency romances/comedies of
manners of Georgette Heyer and others? And should you lose points as
a critic for your inability to recognize this?
>Compare this to Leinster's Med Ship or Exploration Team stories and
>you will find Leinster worked with ideas.
Apples and oranges. Leinster's stories worked with ideas, but some
of which were patently silly, and in any case they did so as part
of the plot formula of the sf pulps; Panshin's, on the other hand,
involved more original story-telling.
>Or compare Panshin's _Rite of Passage_ with Leinster's _Forgotten
>Planet_ Panshin's work is entirely derivitive while Leinster shows
originality.
"Entirely" derivative? That's a bit extreme. I don't for a minute
dispute that it's an obvious tribute to Heinlein's juveniles and
even Heinlein story-writing sensibilities, what with all of the
technology being in place and working, rather than something people
stand around marveling about so's to explain it to the reader. But
quite a number of things happen in _Rite of Passage_ that would
NEVER happen in a Heinlein juvenile, from the ending (the moral
stances of older and younger folks on the Ship being at
loggerheads) to the simple matter of sex between the younger
folks. It was original enough that it won one of the SFWA's first
Nebulas.
>Leinster's SF writing career lasted around fifty years and survived
>the _Astounding_ revolution of the early forties as well as the
>'death' of SF in the late fifties and early sixties. And Panshin's?
>Saying it lasted a decade might be generous. Nor did the volume of
>Panshin's SF while writing approach Leinster's.
I could dispute this as well--Panshin's career is still on-going,
e.g.--but I'm afraid I still don't see the point. I mean, so what?
What does any of this have to do with the price of rice in China, or
the validity (or lack) of Alexei's criticism of Heinlein or Leinster?
Are you perhaps suggesting that for Panshin's criticism of Heinlein to
be valid, Alexei must first produce as many books as Heinlein? And
likewise for Leinster? If so, well, as Bugs Bunny so aptly puts it,
what a maroon! That forula puts Bob Silverberg beyond criticism by
ANYone in the sf field, as he passed the 200-book mark some time back.
More to the point, it means YOUR criticism of Alexei is invalid,
unless you can point to publication of more than five sf novels and
three published volumes of criticism (Alexei may have published more
but they're all that I'm aware of). Or do you apply this criterion only
to Alexei and not to yourself?
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
David G. Bell
j...@iprolink.co.nz "Julian Treadwell" writes:
> Somewhere RAH goes into this question in detail (anyone remember which
> book)? He says that the first duty of an individual is to oneself, then
> to one's immediate family, then to the immediate community you live in,
> then to the country you live in and finally to humanity as a whole. But
> then he says that outside of this there is another, superior moral code
> followed only by a few, which puts humanity first. He gives as a shining
> example the tramp who, on finding a woman with her leg trapped under a
> railway line went on trying to free her and deliberately ignored the
> oncoming train which subsequently killed them both. (I probably haven't
> done justice to what RAH was saying here as I'm going solely from
> memory).
'Expanded Universe'. I'm not sure of where my copy is, but I recall
that the woman's husband was also killed, both trying to free her.
Going by one or two of Heinlein's characters, he seemed to have a lot of
respect for tramps, at least as individuals, and this account does
suggest an explanation.
Has anyone ever tracked down the original incident?
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Never criticise a farmer with your mouth full.
BigEd11
writes:
>"An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
>various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
>
I suspect that type of society "works" (a bad choice of words, but I'm not
sure what else would do here) only if everyone is armed "equally" (the
folks with tanks are offset by the folks with anti-tank weapons) and if
everyone has the same "willingness" to use the weapons.
Which is all stuff and nonsense, anyway. Weapons don't make a society
polite. It makes it run scared. During the LA riots, when my National
Guard unit was on the streets, there were *lots* of guns out there, and
*everyone* was scared about it. Everyone defined as the cops, the Guard,
the gangs, the innocent citizens, the looters, everyone (except the news
crews, but they were just looking for a story)!
My main argument *against* the arming of *all* citizens is my same
argument against all citizens having childern. Sometimes, some people
just aren't up to the responsibility.
I've been handling weapons in some form or another for almost 20 years of
my life, and I *always* perform a basic safety check, always assume the
durn thing is loaded, and never draw it/level it unless I intend on
killing the person I'm aiming at.
There are other people I know who ignore all of the above. I try to avoid
them when possible. If it's not possible, I'm very careful. If that's
your idea of being polite, then fine, but it does nothing to improve *my*
quality of life, which is what I think I should get out of a polite
society.
Ed Green
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In the society posited by Heinlein in tMiaHM, it would take courage to
>express disagreement with a firmly held view, and wisdom to it it in
>such a manner as to not arouse killing fury.
Would it also take courage to possess the wrong skin color or be a member of
the wrong religion? After all, such people are often the targets of killing
fury even in the real world.
You can't very well argue that nobody will be prejudiced in such ways because
it could backfire on their own lives--historically, it _didn't_. About the
best you can do is claim that in such a society everyone will magically be
nice people. To which I respond that if you can postulate that the society
is already full of nice people, rules are irrelevant; rules have to be able
to work when things are not in your favor.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Any creature who would disguise itself as a bone, obviously has no sense of
fair play!" -- Superboy Annual #1
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Heinlein stated in ST that any government system should be based on what
>mankind *is*, not what the governors think that mankind *should be*.
>Too many times, the poets think of what the "people" (bless their hearts)
>should be, devise a system that would work only when the people are
>what they should be, then attempt to impose that system believing that
>the people will automatically become what they should be.
The irony is that this is a pretty big part of my objection to being allowed
to easily kill people for insults.
And I only saw it one article too late.
If you assume that people are as they really are--that they can be irrational,
prejudiced, arbitrary--a society where you can kill people for insults would
be a nightmare. If you assume that people are reasonable, it'll work--but
that's not how mankind *is*, and *should be* doesn't work.
Incidentally, weren't blacks in the South before the civil rights movement
rather polite too? (Of course, servility implies politeness.)
Wayne Johnson
>Would it also take courage to possess the wrong skin color or be a member of
>the wrong religion? After all, such people are often the targets of killing
>fury even in the real world.
>You can't very well argue that nobody will be prejudiced in such ways because
>it could backfire on their own lives--historically, it _didn't_. About the
>best you can do is claim that in such a society everyone will magically be
>nice people. To which I respond that if you can postulate that the society
>is already full of nice people, rules are irrelevant; rules have to be able
>to work when things are not in your favor.
It's really in Beyond This Horizon that Heinlein delves into the
natural result of such a bloody world - he says it is a society of
wolves. People live in a state of perpetual violence, not perpetual
peace.
I find it interesting that most comments on this thread concentrate on
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress; the Loonies had a more organized code,
and even sat jury style for decisions on the fate of transgressors of
the norms. It's in Heinlein's earliest work that he delves into the
violent psyche of the individual, freed of constraints, who can take
offense at whatever he pleases and demand "satisfaction".
Anyone who watched the phenomenal film Ridley Scott film "The
Duellists" (there's your Heinlein director) can see graphically a very
realistic portrait of the type of world this can create; with the
physically gifted freely murdering less talented "offenders", and free
reign given to prejudices and ignoble actions of all sorts.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Gary Farber
generating a crosspost, but I believe you told me in e-mail, quite some
time ago, that you had no problem following up a cross-post.
Please forgive me if you have indeed answered this question that I've
asked you a few times by e-mail, but why you keep breaking cross-posted
threads to reply to someone writing from rec.arts.sf.writen, and post your
response, usually asking a question, only in rec.arts.sf.fandom, starting
a *new* thread, where the person you are addressing will probably never
see it?
Is this some form of obscure protest? Or merely a technical problem, or
forgetfulness? It just keeps striking me as odd: sort of the Usenet
equivalent of walking into a corner and mumbling to yourself.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Cyronwode
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Consider the following logic chain:
>>
>>1. Heinlein believed that he was a gentleman, and would act in a manner
>>that he thought was appropriate for a gentleman.
>>2. Heinlein refused to accept Panshin's attempt at an apology.
>>3. Therefore, Heinlein believed that there would be circumstances under
>>which it is appropriate for a gentleman not to accept an apology.
>>4. You, and some others, do not believe that Heinlein's behaviour in
>>refusing to accept the apology was appropriate.
>>5. If you accept (1), then (3), which contradicts (4).
>>Therefore, you don't accept (1), which is what Rick appears to be
asserting.
>Nope; try formulating all that in modal logic (which you need to
>handle the "belief" part) and you'll see the error.
>
>Heinlein was wrong in what actions he believed were appropriate for a
>gentleman. Thus, I accept 1, 2, 3, and 4.
I get the impression that the core of disagreement over what actions are
or are not appropriate for a "gentleman" has little to do with Panshin's
presumed (possible) violation of Heinlein's privacy but a lot to do with
how the respondants feel about Heinlein's rigid, unbending fixity of
opinion.
Heinlein advocated an armed world, a world without without forgiveness, a
world in which any transgression was final, a world in which apology was
meaningless because there was never to be any further social or personal
interaction once a conflict arose.
I may incite wrath here, but i do not feel that this sort of rigidity was
ever the mark of a "gentleman," although Heinlein may have erroneaously
thought it was. Nor do i believe it was something Heinlein learned in the
military, for even the military allows for absolution -- as for instance
when a cadet misspeaks himself and is given a punitive job, upon
completion of which he returns to his regular assignment. No, i suspect
that Heinlein's fixed unforgiveness arose from his childhood training or
from traumatic events in his youth. His attitude was so inflexible and
unadaptive to changing conditions -- and so ABNORMAL for his time and
culture -- that it seems to arise from pain rather than from thoughtful
understanding of humanity.
catherine yronwode
cyro...@aol.com
alt.lucky.w -- the newsgroup of synchronicity, amulets, and talismans
sustag-p...@ces.ncsu.edu -- e-mail list for the sacred landscape
http://sunSITE.unc.edu/london/The_Sacred_Landscape.html
Wayne Johnson
>cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>>It's really in Beyond This Horizon that Heinlein delves into the
>>natural result of such a bloody world - he says it is a society of
>>wolves.
David:
>Ah, but what did he think of wolves?
Wayne:
Must have liked them, but he had no illusions. If you recall, there
was an assassination attempt on a prominent member of society, based
on a purported slight; it was only foiled by Felix's use of an antique
and noisy .45 in the ensuing melee.
>>Wayne:
>>People live in a state of perpetual violence, not perpetual
>>peace.
>>
>David:
>Nonsense. In Beyond this Horizon, people lived in constant *preparedness*
>for violence, not in perpetual violence.
Wayne:
Back to the aforementioned assasination attempt. It happened in a
crowded restaurant. Fortunately, none of the parties involved made
any wild shots after being wounded, thus injuring bystanders.
Violence was common, and accepted; the only ones exempt wore a "peace
brassard", which placed them so low on the social ladder that they
were routinely mistreated. After all, after the quick gun battle, the
rest of the patrons continued on with their meals.
[David's excellent analysis of Lunar judicial custom snipped]
Wayne:
Your analysis is on the money; good clarification.
>>Wayne:
>>Anyone who watched the phenomenal film Ridley Scott film "The
>>Duellists" (there's your Heinlein director) can see graphically a very
>>realistic portrait of the type of world this can create; with the
>>physically gifted freely murdering less talented "offenders", and free
>>reign given to prejudices and ignoble actions of all sorts.
>>
[More excellent analysis of the duellists snipped]
>BTW, the "physically gifted freely murdering" the less talented happened
>only in the beginning of the film to show that the villian was in fact
>a villain. Nowhere does it show him doing this after he engaged in the
>beginning of the duel with our hero. In fact, considering that he
>made Marshall in Napoleon's army, and Napoleon himself had ordered a
>stop to duelling, it seems unlikely that such a man could continuously
>violate an order from the emperor himself and still be promoted to a
>rank that Napoleon himself would have had to decide on.
>Oh, and just for the record, the villian turned out to be an honorable
>man, since it seems that our hero had no concern about him violating
>the conditions placed after he had lost the duel. Query: how could
>a black hearted scoundrel be such an honorable man?
Wayne:
I really wanted to emphasize the situation that existed before the
dueling ban by Napoleon. Though the "villain" was portrayed as a
bully, it was also made clear that such excess was common, and enough
of a problem for Napoleon to ban it.
I have no doubt that the honor of all parties involved was above
reproach - this was the point of the movie, that honor was of more
value than life itself (thus the duels between amateurs and
professionals!) yet it was ultimately pointless. "Satisfaction" was
totally subjective. The "code" being defended was amorphous and
variable, depending on the "slight" and the aggressiveness of the
"slighted" party.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Misti Anslin
>
>In article <4c6fvt$1...@panix3.panix.com>
>se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>In article <4c0tuc$3...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>It's a very neat trick, to know what somebody else said rather than
>>what I *think* he said.
>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
That implies that you don't consider language a subtle and slippery thing with connotation that may
vary depending on circumstance and subgroup. Would that denotation alone were sufficient, but we humans
don't think that way.
--
Misti
m...@cyberspace.org
man...@mail.ic.net
*****************************************************
...unnecessary dieting is because everything from television to fashion ads
has made it seem wicked to cast a shadow. This wild, emaciated look appeals
to some women, though not to many men, who are seldom seen pinning up
a Vogue illustration in a machine shop. Peg Bracken
*****************************************************
Wayne Johnson
>Anyone care to nominate actual societies, current or historical, that they
>believe closely parallel the armed and polite society of _Beyond this
>Horizon_ or _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, or of the society portrayed
>in _Starship Troopers_?
Wow. A dangerous exercise.
It's limited to the fuedal ideal, but in these societies, there were
armed and polite groups:
Feudal Japan (until around 1850)
Feudal Europe (until around 1800)
American West (1860-1890)
Donning asbestos suit.........
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
James Gifford
: Heinlein advocated an armed world, a world without without forgiveness, a
: world in which any transgression was final, a world in which apology was
: meaningless because there was never to be any further social or personal
: interaction once a conflict arose.
: I may incite wrath here...
Only because you're wrong. Neither _BTH_ nor _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
present the sort of world you're describing. The scene in the restaurant
in _BTH_, for example: Felix is responsible for a messy accident; the
offended party's 'guardian' is clearly ready, willing and able to draw
his weapon; he instead accepts Felix's apology, even dismissing the offer
to pay reparations.
In your described world, Mordan would have simply iced Felix instantly.
And the stilyagi gang would have eliminated Stu LaJoie more or less
instantly. Both instances were tempered by offerance and acceptance of an
apology by true gentlemen.
--
* James Gifford * jgif...@crl.com * Friends don't let friends use Macs *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* See http://www.crl.com/~jgifford for the Heinlein FAQ, ordering *
* info for _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion_ & much more *
Nancy Lebovitz
Cyronwode <cyro...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I get the impression that the core of disagreement over what actions are
>or are not appropriate for a "gentleman" has little to do with Panshin's
>presumed (possible) violation of Heinlein's privacy but a lot to do with
>how the respondants feel about Heinlein's rigid, unbending fixity of
>opinion.
Plausible.
>
>Heinlein advocated an armed world, a world without without forgiveness, a
>world in which any transgression was final, a world in which apology was
>meaningless because there was never to be any further social or personal
>interaction once a conflict arose.
I think you're overgeneralizing. I've been trying to come up with examples
of conflict resolution in Heinlein--here are a few--I'm sure that other
posters will come up with many more.
In STARSHIP TROOPERS, punishing trainees is the norm--throwing them out
or executing them is reserved for the most heinous offenses.
Stuart LaJollie (sp?) is punishend in THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, not
killed.
A sizable chunk of TUNNEL IN THE SKY is spent on figuring out how to
set up a government so that people can live with each other instead of
killing each other or breaking up the group. Note also the heavily armed
"lone wolf" strategist who's one of the first dead.
In "Coventry" nontrivial efforts are made to bring offenders back into
the society. "Coventry" is an interesting counter for those who mostly
focus on the duelling/execution aspect of Heinlein.
Hugh Farnham spent a very long time trying to find a way that he could
live with his wife and son. He didn't succeed (and probably was using
inappropriate methods) but he wasn't quick to remove them from his
life.
The couple in THE CAT WHO WALKED THROUGH WALLS resolve an argument by
both admitting that they're wrong. I'm not sure to what extent they
both thought they were wrong, and to what extent they weren't willing
to risk the relationship by being stubborn.
Imho, a great deal of Heinlein's work is devoted to high-dominance
people figuring out how best to live with each other.
>
I've tried to think of any Heinlein character who behaved the way Heinlein
did in the Panshin incident, and I haven't been able to think of any.
>I may incite wrath here, but i do not feel that this sort of rigidity was
>ever the mark of a "gentleman," although Heinlein may have erroneaously
>thought it was. Nor do i believe it was something Heinlein learned in the
>military, for even the military allows for absolution -- as for instance
>when a cadet misspeaks himself and is given a punitive job, upon
>completion of which he returns to his regular assignment. No, i suspect
>that Heinlein's fixed unforgiveness arose from his childhood training or
>from traumatic events in his youth. His attitude was so inflexible and
>unadaptive to changing conditions -- and so ABNORMAL for his time and
>culture -- that it seems to arise from pain rather than from thoughtful
>understanding of humanity.
Interesting point, though I'd want to see a lot more substantiation before
I believed it. The only other person I can think of that Heinlein threw
out of his life was John Campbell--and I've never been clear about what
Campbell said to cause it.
I do think that Heinlein's behavior hung together logically--if social
transgressions can lead to shunning without warning or explanation, then
privacy becomes very important.
Thanks for bringing up those points. Not only do I love psychologizing :-),
but I think that conflict resolution in Heinlein could be a large and
interesting topic.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Nancy Lebovitz
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <DKHIy...@world.std.com>
>Bob Webber <web...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>In article <4c783u$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> David MacLean,
>>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca writes:
>>>>what I *think* he said.
>>>
>>>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
>>>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
>>
>>know what you think he said. You're just biased in favour of thinking
>>you can think without bias.
>>
>
>Please don't start a Zeno's paradox with the English language. Such an
>infinite series converges. Reference to a dictionary will give the
>denotation. If your opponent misuses the language, it is permissible
>to ask for clarification, as it is for the equivocative use of a term.
I don't have quite that much trust in dictionaries. If you're lucky, they'll
give an accurate description of what the majority meant by the word at the
time the dictionary was compiled. I think you're better off discussing
what the arguers meant when they used or read a word, and (if possible)
moving any discussion of what the best word would be for the concept off
a bit to a side discussion.
Nancy Lebovitz
Dave Palmer <ar...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>What's wrong with emotional discord? Do you expect people's emotions
>to be rational? I would guess that things would be awful boring that
>way.
>
I would dearly love to check out such boredom, just to see if I liked
it. I just might.
Stevens R. Miller
>in _BTH_, for example: Felix is responsible for a messy accident; the
>offended party's 'guardian' is clearly ready, willing and able to draw
>his weapon; he instead accepts Felix's apology...
Is an apology worth much, under these conditions?
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Stevens R. Miller
>bor...@netcom.com (Douglas H. Borsom) wrote:
>>Anyone care to nominate actual societies...
>...these societies, there were
>armed and polite groups:
>American West (1860-1890)
This one isn't a close fit. Turner's Frontier Thesis goes a long way towards
revealing the 19'th century American west as a polite place were rifle
ownership was common, but where the frequent use of arms in social contact
wasn't. That is, rifles weren't used much to settle intrasocial conflict; the
courtesy came more from enlightened self-interest and (by golly!) simple human
kindness.
Stevens R. Miller
>In <4c9uhp$9...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz)
>>I've tried to think of any Heinlein character who behaved the way Heinlein
>>did in the Panshin incident, and I haven't been able to think of any.
>Consider _Red Planet_, Martians rolled up into balls. They were shunning
>the universe rather than one or two people.
IIRC, these martians also claimed to live simultaneously in each of two
worlds, and it just so happened that ours was the one they regarded as the
less important of the two. Mapping this onto Heinlein's atrocious behavior
toward's Panshin's extended hand opens a new view on Heinlein's sense of
himself in relation to the rest of the world. (And, please, let's skip the
pro forma "don't judge him by his books" disclaimers; time for that crap to
stop.)
Loren J. MacGregor
somebody else said rather than what I *think* he said," David MacLean
wrote:
>
> No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the
> language communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing
> the meaning.
Yes. You will note, of course, that intelligent people have been arguing
about, among other things, the meaning of the Bible, of the Magna Carta,
of the Bill of Rights and almost every other written or recorded document
since each document was created. I suppose it depends on what side of
the fence you're sitting on as to whether you "comprehend the language
communicated in" or "add your own biases thus changing the meaning."
Since we *all* have biases *all* of us bring them to whatever we read,
write, hear or say.
-- LJM
James Gifford
: >in _BTH_, for example: Felix is responsible for a messy accident; the
: >offended party's 'guardian' is clearly ready, willing and able to draw
: >his weapon; he instead accepts Felix's apology...
: Is an apology worth much, under these conditions?
Er... I would think so. Shooting someone for dropping a piece of food is
a trifle harsh. If Felix had been rude about it, Mordan would have been
justified in drilling him. But the opportunity for apology was given and
taken.
Patrick Cox
: Seth Breidbart (se...@panix.com) wrote:
: : "An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
: : various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
: Yes, this theory has proved itself in Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan,
: Bosnia, Rwanda, Lebanon, and so many other places, including US inner
: cities. But they probably haven't had time to "settle out."
: And they probably haven't read Heinlein enough. That's their problem.
: --
: -- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
: Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Of all these situations, the one I know the most about is
Lebanon. Prior to the invasion of that country by forces
fighting the war over Isreal, the Lebanese were an extremely
armed and peaceful people. Rifles and other long guns were
displayed openly in cars and such, as they are in the US
heartland where crime rates are low. Handguns, while
technically illegal, were ubiquitious. The threat of citizen
justice was so serious that many people didn't lock their
doors even when leaving home for days at a time.
The other countries cited, I am less familiar with, but
it is clear that state-sponsored warfare and terrorism are
no rebuttal to the right to keep and bear arms.
Patrick
Mean Green Dancing Machine
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4c6fvt$1...@panix3.panix.com>
>se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>
>
>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
I would strongly suggest that you read some Deborah Tannen, starting
with _That's Not What I Meant!_, before you open your mouth again and
say something even more foolish.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het nipple boy
Fifth Virtual Anniversary: 365 days and counting
Zed
>In article <4c8l25$j...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>In article <DKHIy...@world.std.com>
>>Bob Webber <web...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>In article <4c783u$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> David MacLean,
>>>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca writes:
>>>>>It's a very neat trick, to know what somebody else said rather than
>>>>>what I *think* he said.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
>>>>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
>>>
>>>But even then, you may think you know what he said, but really you
>>>know what you think he said. You're just biased in favour of thinking
>>>you can think without bias.
>>>
>>
>>Please don't start a Zeno's paradox with the English language. Such an
>>infinite series converges. Reference to a dictionary will give the
>>denotation. If your opponent misuses the language, it is permissible
>>to ask for clarification, as it is for the equivocative use of a term.
>I don't have quite that much trust in dictionaries. If you're lucky, they'll
>give an accurate description of what the majority meant by the word at the
>time the dictionary was compiled. I think you're better off discussing
>what the arguers meant when they used or read a word, and (if possible)
>moving any discussion of what the best word would be for the concept off
>a bit to a side discussion.
This is a job for... GILBERT GOSSEYN!!!!
General Semantics, anyone?
---
BE BRAVE, NEW WAVE!
"I am the story I tell myself."
--Greg Wait (z0...@ix.netcom.com)
Matt Hickman
<snip>
>I've tried to think of any Heinlein character who behaved the way Heinlein
>did in the Panshin incident, and I haven't been able to think of any.
Consider _Red Planet_, Martians rolled up into balls. They were shunning
the universe rather than one or two people. This may fit the criteria, although
Heinlein's Martians certainly took things to the extreme. Now consider what
happened to those humans foolish enough to force their attentions on these
Martians.
>The only other person I can think of that Heinlein threw
>out of his life was John Campbell--and I've never been clear about what
>Campbell said to cause it.
My impression is that the final falling out between Heinlein and Campbell
came when Campbell rejected _Starship Troopers_, perhaps one of the
worse editorial decisions JWC ever made. and the least understandable.
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
...he had let himself be bulldozed by the odds against
him. He promised himself never again to pay any attention
to the odds, but only the issues.
- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
_Between Planets_ (c. 1951)
Cecil Rose
>And to Rick Cook, who made a similar post:
>In article <DKAzs...@novice.uwaterloo.ca>, jam...@coulomb.uwaterloo.ca
>(James Nicoll) wrote:
>> In article <romm-28129...@ppp-66-1.dialup.winternet.com>,
>> David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >And again, it seems as if Heinlein confused understanding customs and
>> >choosing to live with them. Heinlein's characters do very well in
>> >adapting to whatever culture they're in. Heinlein himself seems to have
>> >failed to do that. Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
>> >makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
>>
>> Well, only about fifty years past at the time of the incident,
>> if the set of manners involved were those common when Heinlein was a
>> kid.
>Even if that kind of rigidity was only 50 years in the past, surely the
>Dean of Science Fiction would know what culture he's living in now. Heck,
>he helped to create it.
>> >It's not fair to judge a man by one incident, but this whole thread has
>> >tarnished Heinlein's reputation, and the reputation of his defenders.
>>
>> Why? Did he fail to follow his code of behavior consistently?
>> Did he apply it hypocritically? I'm not sure what criteria you are applying
>> here.
>Please read the above paragraph you quoted. Following a foolish code of
>behavior tarnishes one's reputation, whether one follows it consistently
>or not.
Please explain to us why you consider it foolish. It seems to have a
great deal to recommend it to me.
Cecil Rose
ala...@earthlink.net
Carson, California
Nancy Lebovitz
Matt Hickman <bh...@chevron.com> wrote:
>In <4c9uhp$9...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
><snip>
>>I've tried to think of any Heinlein character who behaved the way Heinlein
>>did in the Panshin incident, and I haven't been able to think of any.
>
>Consider _Red Planet_, Martians rolled up into balls. They were shunning
>the universe rather than one or two people. This may fit the criteria, although
>Heinlein's Martians certainly took things to the extreme. Now consider what
>happened to those humans foolish enough to force their attentions on these
>Martians.
>
If it matters, we aren't given details of how their society works, and
curling up in a ball when you're offended is supposed to be *alien*
behavior.
>>The only other person I can think of that Heinlein threw
>>out of his life was John Campbell--and I've never been clear about what
>>Campbell said to cause it.
>
>My impression is that the final falling out between Heinlein and Campbell
>came when Campbell rejected _Starship Troopers_, perhaps one of the
>worse editorial decisions JWC ever made. and the least understandable.
>
My impression was that Campbell said A Wrong Thing about World War II....
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>In article <4c1q38$s...@news2.delphi.com>, Rick Cook <rc...@BIX.com> wrote:
>>Registration is not necessary to obtain copyright in the US and I am not
>>sure it ever was. Where registration comes into play is in assessing damage
>>in the event of an infringment. (Well, basically anyway.)
>Registration (before publication) _was_ necessary, up until 1976 (I
>think that's the correct date). If there was no publication,
>registration was unnecessary.
And as Gilbert&Sullivan found out, even that wasn't always enough ;-)
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
'There was a man,' remarked Captain Eliot, 'who was sentenced
to death for stealing a horse from a common. He said to the judge,
that he thought it hard to be hanged for stealing a horse from a
common and the judge answered, "You are not to be hanged for
stealing a horse from a common, but that others may not steal
horses from commons." '
'And do you find,' asked Stephen, 'that in fact horses are not
daily stolen from commons? You do not!'
--- "The Mauritius Command" by Patrick O'Brian
Stevens R. Miller
>From: jgif...@crl.com (James Gifford)
>Subject: Re: A Heinlein Anecdote
>Date: 1 Jan 1996 22:48:04 -0800
>Stevens R. Miller (l...@interport.net) wrote:
>: In article <4c9sfo$n...@crl9.crl.com> jgif...@crl.com (James Gifford) writes:
>: >in _BTH_, for example: Felix is responsible for a messy accident; the
>: >offended party's 'guardian' is clearly ready, willing and able to draw
>: >his weapon; he instead accepts Felix's apology...
>: Is an apology worth much, under these conditions?
>Er... I would think so. Shooting someone for dropping a piece of food is
>a trifle harsh. If Felix had been rude about it, Mordan would have been
>justified in drilling him. But the opportunity for apology was given and
>taken.
Er... maybe I'm confused about the facts. It sounds like Mordan extracted an
apology from Felix by threat of death. Given conditions like that, even I
would apologize for a messy accident Felix is responsible for. Who wouldn't?
If the deal is, "apologize or die," damned near everyone will apologize, won't
they?
Perhaps you have inverted the sense of my question. I didn't mean, "was the
apology a good idea, in as much as it saved a life," (a clear "yes," from the
point of view of the reprieved). I meant, "how sincere is an apology when it
is obtained at gunpoint?" (a clear "not very," IMHO).
Matt Hickman
>In article <4ca8em$20...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
>Matt Hickman <bh...@chevron.com> wrote:
>>In <4c9uhp$9...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>><snip>
>>>I've tried to think of any Heinlein character who behaved the way Heinlein
>>>did in the Panshin incident, and I haven't been able to think of any.
>>
>>Consider _Red Planet_, Martians rolled up into balls. They were shunning
>>the universe rather than one or two people.
>>
>curling up in a ball when you're offended is supposed to be *alien*
>behavior.
Well Heinlein certainly did not curl up in a ball, but one can see
an analogue between human and the fictional Martian behavior.
For a human example, Let's take a look at _Citizen of the Galaxy_.
When Thorby came on board the Sisu, he was shunned - ignored
and treated as beneath contempt. However this was not the result
of anyone's offensive behavior, so this may not be a good fit.
Perhaps a better example comes a bit later on while Thorby was
still on the Sisu. He has a falling out with his adopted brother, Fritz
Krausa IIRC. Thorby and Margaret Mader have a talk where she points
out that there is little individual freedom on the Sisu, that crowded
conditions and ship duty will throw people together who would
avoid each other under different conditions. Here Mader mentions that
one could go for days speaking only direct quotes from the
Sisu's manual, in effect shunning. IMHO, this fits the bill.
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
The grimmest place in the world, lonelier than being
alone, is Coventry, and even a reprimand is better
than being ignored.
- Robert A. Heinlein _Citizen of the Galaxy_
Stevens R. Miller
>For a human example, Let's take a look at _Citizen of the Galaxy_.
>When Thorby came on board the Sisu, he was shunned - ignored
>and treated as beneath contempt.
Good comparison, Matt. I don't agree with those who say that Heinlein
"learned" his manners at the Naval Academy. By the time he wrote "Citizen,"
he'd had much more life under his belt to learn from. But, this matter of
shunning and curling into a ball and killing people for spilling milk seems to
be in lots of his writing. Regardless of where he learned it, Heinlein's work
shows a fond approval of this you-don't-exist-to-me reaction.
It fits the model of a man whose close associates have strained, at times, to
find polite ways around what may have been simple self-centered behavior.
Asimov wrote that Heinlein would "grow hostile" towards those who disagreed
with him. Campbell paid the you-don't-exist price for this, himself. Arthur
Clarke went into Heinlein Coventry over a disagreement regarding SDI; it took
the mediation of Heinlein's wife to get them talking again.
What's amazing about this behavior is not that it exists (little children
sometimes keep written lists of whom they are talking to, and whom they are
not). What's amazing is that it exists in a man the very same commentators
regard as a refined gentleman. Clarke called Heinlein, "one of the most
courteous people I have ever known." Asimov said he had, "a courtly way about
him."
But Asimov went on to say, "I played the peasant to his aristocrat," and "he
had a definite feeling that he knew better and to lecture you into agreeing
with him." It's not much to go on, but one might find a clue in these
observations as to how the petulance of you-don't-exist can be reconciled with
the perception of a courtly, courteous man.
In children, you-don't-exist is always accompanied by other childlike
behavior: tantrums, expressions of hatred, pouting, etc. Take those things
away and replace them with a good suit of clothes, gray temples and a
stentorian, "good day, sir," and you have the appearance of sophistication.
But, it's still childish. Really, the Panshin story, the Campbell letters,
and the anecdotes of Clarke and Asimov reveal more of what Asimov called "a
meanness of spirit," that I agree the world didn't need to see. Having seen
it, it's remarkable to me how many defend not only the man who showed it
(which, IMHO, is the excellent difference between loving the sinner, and not
the sin), but the behavior itself.
Childishness remains childish, no matter how old the speaker is, how well he
dresses, or how many "sirs" punctuate his tantrums. I've read this whole
thread so far and can't find a single reason to view Heinlein's petulance as
the behavior of a gentleman. Others have pointed out that this is a very
subjective call; I can't argue. But, purely at the object level, it seems in
substance to be indifferentiable from the behavior of little children. I
think that speaks for itself.
James Nicoll
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4c9kv2$6...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
>>>believe closely parallel the armed and polite society of _Beyond this
>>>Horizon_ or _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, or of the society portrayed
>>>in _Starship Troopers_?
>>
>>Wow. A dangerous exercise.
>>
>>armed and polite groups:
>>
>>Feudal Japan (until around 1850)
>>Feudal Europe (until around 1800)
>>American West (1860-1890)
>>
>>Donning asbestos suit.........
>
>
>Heinlein position. In these societies, only certain segments of the
>populace were armed. In Japan, it was the Samari, and in Europe,
>it was the aristocracy or nobility. The peasants or serfs, which
>by and large formed the majority of the population, were forbidden
>on pain of execution from owning arms unless they were members of
>the nobles army. Heinlein socities were much more egalitarian.
I believe the restriction on arms varied greatly from place to
place in feudal Europe: it's hard to teach the yeomen how to use a longbow
if they are not allowed weapons.
Heh. If memory serves, one 'weapons' restriction in the Land
of the Second Amendment was that Irishmen in NYC weren't allowed to
carry canes, because they kept hitting people with them or so it was
claimed. Humane experimentation with broomsticks and a younger sibling
indicates one can get quite an effect from a 1.5 meter stick (Although
breaking a board over someone works better)*.
>The American West comes much closer, and was probably the model which
>Heinlein used. However, despite the attempts by Hollywood to glorify
>the shootout, such occurances were relatively rare. I have some doubt
>(and I am speaking opinion unsupported by fact - please correct me
>if this opinion is wrong) that the homicide rate in the "Wild West"
>exceeded that of modern day New York or L.A.
If memory serves, the murder rate in 1800s New York was higher
than out west. One wonders how much the dime novels of the late 19th
century and the westerns of the 20th affected our views of the American
West.
James Nicoll
* Yes, my mother family is largely Irish.
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
David E Romm
(Cecil Rose) wrote:
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
[big snip]
> > Following a foolish code of
> >behavior tarnishes one's reputation, whether one follows it consistently
> >or not.
>
> Please explain to us why you consider it foolish. It seems to have a
> great deal to recommend it to me.
Not only was Heinlein wrong about what Panshin did, he refused to listen
to an apology. For someone who kept constructing societies where social
lubrication was the key to success, Heinlein was being remarkably anal.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"[The Michigan Militia] are guys whose wives make them sleep on the couch a lot." -- Mark Russell
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4c4jmu$d...@news1.panix.com>
>awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) wrote:
>> Right. Right. Just keep thinking "Kitty Genovese, Kitty Genovese..."
>
>I find that I have to refuse this guilt trip. When Kitty Genovese was
>killed in New York City, I was in Edmonton, and had not yet reached double
>digits in age.
>
>In fact, if a similar event had happened in Heinlein's L. City, a mob
>would have ripped the attacker apart at the first whimper and deposited
>him out the nearest airlock.
...
>>>>What about that liberal talk-show host who was assassinated by some
>>>>right-wingers in Denver a few years ago? OK by you?
>>>Didn't hear about it. Couldn't care less.
>> Well, he was probably just an old rude-nik anyway.
>Irrelevant. I never heard of him. Didn't listen to him. His death affects
>me not in the slightest. Whether he lived or died makes not the slightest
>difference in my life. It would be a different story if he were family
>or friend, and I do not have the slightest idea of the motivation of
>the killer. Perhaps this person deserved killing. Perhaps not. If not,
>his family and friends will avenge him.
I wonder how you reconcile those two claims. After all, Kitty
Genovese wasn't a family member or friend of any of those people who
saw her killing.
There are subcultures in the US today in which "disrespecting"
somebody can get you killed. I haven't heard anything about those
subcultures being more polite than the rest of society.
Seth
Gary Farber
: Or, phrased in a manner like yours: Why should I read a book that
: was recommended by an idiot like you?
I'll recommend Deborah Tannen's books. Not as gospel: I have some
disagreements. But as books worth reading with some valuable points to
consider on the nature and styles of verbal communication.
They've been best-sellers, by the way, and actually deserve it. Suzette
Haden Elgin's books on the Verbal Art of Self-Defense are also very much
worth reading.
Nancy Lebovitz
>(Cecil Rose) wrote:
>
>> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>
>[big snip]
>
>> > Following a foolish code of
>> >behavior tarnishes one's reputation, whether one follows it consistently
>> >or not.
>>
>> Please explain to us why you consider it foolish. It seems to have a
>> great deal to recommend it to me.
>
>Not only was Heinlein wrong about what Panshin did, he refused to listen
>to an apology. For someone who kept constructing societies where social
>lubrication was the key to success, Heinlein was being remarkably anal.
Perhaps he was so concerned with the need for social lubrication because
his behavior frequently made it necessary. This isn't just a wiseass comment
(it's *also* a wiseass comment)---he was noticing a real problem and a
possible solution because it was a significant part of his life.
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>The other countries cited, I am less familiar with, but
>it is clear that state-sponsored warfare and terrorism are
>no rebuttal to the right to keep and bear arms.
Whoa! Please don't derail the discussion! This is not about the right to
bear arms, but about the right (social acceptability) of bearing arms AND
using them for duelling with people who offend you in some way. The
proposition under dispute is "An armed society is a polite society", not
"An armed society is a peaceful, crime-free society")
Nancy Lebovitz
Matt Hickman <bh...@chevron.com> wrote:
>In <4cafuq$i...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>In article <4ca8em$20...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
>>Matt Hickman <bh...@chevron.com> wrote:
>>>In <4c9uhp$9...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>><snip>
>>>>I've tried to think of any Heinlein character who behaved the way Heinlein
>>>>did in the Panshin incident, and I haven't been able to think of any.
>>>
>
>For a human example, Let's take a look at _Citizen of the Galaxy_.
>When Thorby came on board the Sisu, he was shunned - ignored
>of anyone's offensive behavior, so this may not be a good fit.
This parallels someone's comment about shunning (especially w/o
warning) making more sense in single-culture environments.
It might also be interesting to note that the people on the
Sisu made allowances for fraki, but didn't make allowances for
their own kind.
>
>Perhaps a better example comes a bit later on while Thorby was
>still on the Sisu. He has a falling out with his adopted brother, Fritz
>Krausa IIRC. Thorby and Margaret Mader have a talk where she points
>out that there is little individual freedom on the Sisu, that crowded
>conditions and ship duty will throw people together who would
>avoid each other under different conditions. Here Mader mentions that
>one could go for days speaking only direct quotes from the
>Sisu's manual, in effect shunning. IMHO, this fits the bill.
Yes, though even that's less extreme in the sense that reconcilliation
was possible. (I don't remember the details from the book, though.)
You've definitely found some human shunning in Heinlein's works.
To shift my ground slightly, it's clear that Heinlein is portraying
the Sisu's culture as functional but extremely limited and limiting--
he certainly isn't showing it as either ideal or typical.
Part of the reason I brought this up is that I was wondering if
Panshin really did have the information needed to predict Heinlein's
behavior. He might have been able to derive it from knowledge
of Heinlein's upbringing, but I don't think it was deducible from
the books.
Nancy Lebovitz
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4c9uvi$9...@universe.digex.net>
>nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>>In article <4c8l25$j...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>In article <DKHIy...@world.std.com>
>>>Bob Webber <web...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <4c783u$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> David MacLean,
>>>>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca writes:
>>>>>>It's a very neat trick, to know what somebody else said rather than
>>>>>>what I *think* he said.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
>>>>>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
>>>>
>>>>But even then, you may think you know what he said, but really you
>>>>know what you think he said. You're just biased in favour of thinking
>>>>you can think without bias.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Please don't start a Zeno's paradox with the English language. Such an
>>>infinite series converges. Reference to a dictionary will give the
>>>denotation. If your opponent misuses the language, it is permissible
>>>to ask for clarification, as it is for the equivocative use of a term.
>>
>>I don't have quite that much trust in dictionaries. If you're lucky, they'll
>>give an accurate description of what the majority meant by the word at the
>>time the dictionary was compiled. I think you're better off discussing
>>what the arguers meant when they used or read a word, and (if possible)
>>moving any discussion of what the best word would be for the concept off
>>a bit to a side discussion.
>
>negated. Unfortunately, it seems that there is a growing tendancy to
>assign new and uncommon meanings to old and common terms. In this
>way, the purveyor of the "new" meaning can claim that someone using
>the word in the old sense agrees with the purveyor.
>
I don't think that languages work by standards--I think they work by
consensus. A dictionary is, at best, a snapshot of the consensus at
a particular time and thus may be a useful guide to the current consensus.
I don't know whether new meanings are being given to old words more
now than they were in the past. I'm not even sure how you'd check such
a claim for a fairly rapidly changing language like English.
I agree that defining and/or redefining words can be a power
grab. I don't think that going to the dictionary is the right way to
handle it, since adding new meanings to old words seems to be a normal
part of change in language. It's presumably the reason that many
words in the dictionary have multiple (but sometimes closely related)
meanings.
>One example is the term "addiction". The meaning of addiction, and
>the meaning in most dictionaries is that of physical and habitual
>use of a substance, the cessation of which results in severe physical
>symptoms. The word was used to describe the use of the opiates.
>
>However, the meaning of the term has changed dramatically, and this was
>intentional. It began with the finding that tobacco use was dangerous,
>and therefore, some people in their zeal, wanted to stamp it out.
>
Are you sure about this history of the change? What are your sources?
>Thus, they eased up on the severe part of the withdrawl symptoms, replacing
>it with "some" symptoms.
>
>However, with that reduction, a whole host of other things could now
>become "addictions". Where once you were a drunk, you are now an
>alcohol addict. Where once you were hornier than average, you are
>now a sex addict. Where once you were a high roller, you are now a
>gambling addict.
People who drink heavily for long periods sometimes do have serious
physical withdrawal symptoms.
I think that what's been going on is more complex than what you're
describing--there's some element of trying to make people normal,
and there's also an effort to develope a concept to cover all
repeatedly self-destructive behavior.
(Just for fun, try applying one of those "are you an addict?
questionaires to early Christianity.)
>
>And the point of the change in definition was to apply the emotional
>appeal that the word addiction inspires so that intervention becomes
>a requirement, so that everybody will be good little boys and girls.
>
I think you're over-simplifying. Note that the 12-step programs haven't
pushed for laws.
>The only way to effectively combat this is, when suspected, insisting
>that the arguer stick with the dictionary definition of the terms
>he or she uses.
I'm not sure that there's *any* way to combat this tendency effectively.
Sometimes it may make more sense to retreat partway, let them have the
word, and use a new word yourself.
>
>I am not opposed to the language evolving, but really, if you mean something
>different from the accepted meaning of a term, don't use that term. If
>necessary, make up another term - this means that the language will still
>evolve, but does not imply forcing the emotional baggage associated
>with an old situation on a new situation.
>
Well, I'm trying to convince people not to flame on the net--I think
my chances of success are about as high as yours.
Ken Arromdee
Cyronwode <cyro...@aol.com> wrote:
>Heinlein advocated an armed world, a world without without forgiveness, a
>world in which any transgression was final, a world in which apology was
>meaningless because there was never to be any further social or personal
>interaction once a conflict arose.
Advocating that *one particular type of action* is unforgivable, or even that
several types are, is by no means equivalent to advocating that *any*
action is.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Any creature who would disguise itself as a bone, obviously has no sense of
fair play!" -- Superboy Annual #1
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>Wayne, I don't think Feudal Japan and Feudal Europe come close to the
>Heinlein position. In these societies, only certain segments of the
>populace were armed.
But in a previous posting you just pointed out (as a merit of the
society) that in the world of BtH only those capable of passing a
licensing examination were allowed to carry guns.
>In Japan, it was the Samari, and in Europe, it was the aristocracy or
>nobility. The peasants or serfs, which by and large formed the majority
>of the population, were forbidden on pain of execution from owning arms
>unless they were members of the nobles army. Heinlein socities were much
>more egalitarian.
BtH does not mention how big a percentage of the population carries guns.
At the very least most control naturals would be unable to compete. Not
to mention physical cripples and those with below average reactin times.
How's that for egality?
>The American West comes much closer, and was probably the model which
>Heinlein used. However, despite the attempts by Hollywood to glorify
>the shootout, such occurances were relatively rare. I have some doubt
>(and I am speaking opinion unsupported by fact - please correct me
>if this opinion is wrong) that the homicide rate in the "Wild West"
>exceeded that of modern day New York or L.A.
Since all shootings done by professional shootists (and, like you, I have
no figures for how common they actually were) would have been registered
as "self-defense", the homicide rate is not very relevant. But the hired
killer of popular fiction is a perfect example of the way I believe the
duelling code of your "polite society" would be misused. (Just like
Heinlein did - the whole duelling scene in BtH is an attempted
assasination.)
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
"Facts are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
- Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>In article <4c0gsf$b...@odin.diku.dk>,
>Hans Rancke-Madsen <ran...@diku.dk> wrote:
>>aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>>
>>>Side note on copyright: the possessor of a letter has the right to do
>>>with it what zie will; however, the copyright still vests with the
>>>author, and if someone other than the author publishes the letter, zie
>>>can be sued.
>>
>>This is true under the Berne Convention, where you automatically have
>>copyright to anything you write, but is it also the case under the
>>American copyright laws? I would be surprised to learn that it was. It
>>is my impression that you had to send a copy so some official library
>>(Library of Congress?) in order to recieve copyright to anything.
>The USA is now a signatory of the Berne Convention, and has been for
>about fifteen years.
Yes, I knew that, but on rereading my post I realize that I did not make
that clear. However, the USA wasn't signatory to the Berne convention at
the time of the Panshin/Heinlein controversy, was it? My point was that
the US Copyright laws would have been the ones governing what was and
what wasn't legal at the time. Did Heinlein have copyright to his letters
at that time? (And, yes, I realize that 'legal' and 'moral' are not
synonymous - this is just a side issue to the debate).
(BTW. someone told me that the US copyright laws are still in force when
it comes to issues between two Americans, and that the Berne Convention
only applies to issues between Americans and non-Americans. Is this true?
It sounds a bit strange, but you never know with lawyers... ;-)
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
Christopher Davis
SRM> What's amazing about this behavior is not that it exists (little
SRM> children sometimes keep written lists of whom they are talking to,
SRM> and whom they are not). What's amazing is that it exists in a man
SRM> the very same commentators regard as a refined gentleman.
You seem refined enough to me. Do you use a kill file? Do you ignore the
perpetrators of massive crosspostings, or those who gleefully incite
flamewar after flamewar? Or do you (via superhuman speed-reading ;-) read
every single post to rec.arts.sf.written?
And if you do, do you think they all merit a response?
Politely ignoring someone is far, FAR more refined (IMHO) than screaming
obscenities at them (which is, after all, a temptation in many cases,
though I suspect RAH would have managed to be more eloquent and not have
to resort to obscenities to fill his imprecations).
--
Christopher Davis * <c...@kei.com> * <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/ >
[ PGP & MIME gladly accepted / PGP keys on keyservers, WWW page, finger ]
You know the Internet is too commercialized when... you go to "Internet
World" and the Microsoft booth is 8 times the size of the Cisco booth.
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>In the society posited by Heinlein in tMiaHM, it would take courage to
>>>express disagreement with a firmly held view, and wisdom to it it in
>>>such a manner as to not arouse killing fury.
>>Would it also take courage to possess the wrong skin color or be a member of
>>the wrong religion? After all, such people are often the targets of killing
>>fury even in the real world.
>Historically, there has never been a society in which everyone was armed
>evenly. It has always been the elite and their allies (stooges) who held
>the greater amount of force.
And how do you _get_ two sides with differing amounts of force?
You get it by having two more similar sides, and one side losing the battle.
You may have to trace back through several generations, and cultures, and
parts of history, to when interactions were very different, but that's basi-
cally it. Ultimately, having two sides with different amounts of force is an
intermediate stage between having two sides with the same amount of force, and
having two sides with one side mostly dead. It just gets there in two steps
instead of one, with the intermediate step taking some time.
>And I find that very few, if any, bigots are courageous.
On the contrary. Look at the propaganda for almost any war. People are more
motivated to fight the enemy by hating them.
Also remember that bigotry can warp people's judgment, so it can make fighting
for other reasons easier.
David MacLean
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>...
>> Too many times, the poets think of what the "people" (bless their hearts)
>> should be, devise a system that would work only when the people are
>> what they should be, then attempt to impose that system believing that
>> the people will automatically become what they should be.
>...
>
>But then Heinlein's books are works of *fiction,* and in the large
>sense of the word, Heinlein is a poet.
>
Heinlein is a pragmatist. He seldom wrote words that merely sounded
beautiful but had no thought behind them. Certainly "the death of
any man diminishes me" *sounds* nice, but that's all that it is.
>While some readers embrace his make-believe societies, others question
>whether it isn't Heinlein who, in the context of these fictional societies,
>presents people as they should be (in Heinlein's mind), rather than as they
>really are.
>
Certainly a possibility, and he certainly may be wrong. However, his
thoughts on creating a society based on what human beings, as a group, are,
instead of on what has happened in the past, ie, either an elite group
projects what they are on all human beings, or a potential world changer
bases his theories on what he believes human beings should be, is not
invalidated by a mistake in determining what humang beings as a group are.
Even the U.S. democracy is based on a belief in what the people should be,
not what they are, for if the people were truly what they should be
to make the theory work, you would not have to imprison a greater
proportion of your citizens than any other nation in the world.
--
***************************************************************************
David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
***************************************************************************
David MacLean
Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>>In article <4c8eln$l...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>
>
>>>It's really in Beyond This Horizon that Heinlein delves into the
>>>natural result of such a bloody world - he says it is a society of
>>>wolves.
>>
>>Ah, but what did he think of wolves?
>
>Not wolves really, as wolves have no choice about whether to be wolves,
>but in BTH people had the choice of whether to go armed or whether to
>wear a 'peace badge' which indicated the wearer was not armed and would
>not fight, in which case it was forbidden to challenge him or attack him.
>
>More to the point, what did he think of anarchy? I think that is really
>what the vigilante justice in TMiaHM was about, as anarchy was a central
>theme of the book and a necessary corollary of a functional anarchy is
>the willingness of its citizens to maintain decent standards of behaviour
>by force. RAH's views on that are spelt out in some detail in his
>interview with Neil Schumann (available on James Giford's Heinlein page
>if you're interested). He says there that it is an admirable ideal but
>he suspects that in any society which is not extremely small in size a
>certain amount of government is probably a necessary evil. Even in
>TMiaHM the 'good-guy' anarchists (Manny and Prof) don't get the free
>society they want in the end, and Manny is left wondering if 'food riots
>are too high a price to pay for letting people be', i.e. if their
>anarchistic ideals were really workable.
>
>In short, I suspect RAH *liked the idea* of a society such as he
>described, but didn't really believe it would work.
>
Yes, and he experimented with it elsewhere - the decision to transport
all "democrats" (note the small 'd') to one planet in TEfL, since a
democracy was never attempted where all the members of the society
were democrats at heart, the backwoods escaped slave society on
Venus in (damn, I can't remember the name of the story - Future History,
before the Schudder Interegnum), etc.
In fact, come to think of it, whenever he posited a unified society,
he always had some external threat to that society - the bugs in
ST, the Martians in SiaSL, and even the Howard Families in the time
of the Covenant.
I don't think that he believed that "peace" was a natural condition.
Unfortunately, history shows that he may be right.
[deletia]
>
>Exactly. He addresses both the killer side of humanity and the social
>side. He was by several accounts an expert swordsman as well as a
>veteran of the armed services, so it's hardly surprising that armed
>combat is a central theme in many of his works. But he never glories in
>violence for its own sake and always puts it firmly in a social context
>and exposes it to moral scrutiny.
I think that Juan Rico's analysis of why wars and human survival result
from the same causes in ST expresses it best, especially when he says
that pretty soon, the society that "ain't gonna study war no more" gets
pushed aside by one that has no such compunctions.
David MacLean
>>believe closely parallel the armed and polite society of _Beyond this
>>Horizon_ or _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, or of the society portrayed
>>in _Starship Troopers_?
>
>Wow. A dangerous exercise.
>
>It's limited to the fuedal ideal, but in these societies, there were
>armed and polite groups:
>
>Feudal Japan (until around 1850)
>Feudal Europe (until around 1800)
>American West (1860-1890)
>
>Donning asbestos suit.........
Wayne, I don't think Feudal Japan and Feudal Europe come close to the
Heinlein position. In these societies, only certain segments of the
populace were armed. In Japan, it was the Samari, and in Europe,
it was the aristocracy or nobility. The peasants or serfs, which
by and large formed the majority of the population, were forbidden
on pain of execution from owning arms unless they were members of
the nobles army. Heinlein socities were much more egalitarian.
The American West comes much closer, and was probably the model which
Heinlein used. However, despite the attempts by Hollywood to glorify
the shootout, such occurances were relatively rare. I have some doubt
(and I am speaking opinion unsupported by fact - please correct me
if this opinion is wrong) that the homicide rate in the "Wild West"
exceeded that of modern day New York or L.A.
--
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>
>
>>>It's really in Beyond This Horizon that Heinlein delves into the
>>>natural result of such a bloody world - he says it is a society of
>>>wolves.
>
>>Ah, but what did he think of wolves?
>
>Must have liked them, but he had no illusions. If you recall, there
>was an assassination attempt on a prominent member of society, based
>on a purported slight; it was only foiled by Felix's use of an antique
>and noisy .45 in the ensuing melee.
>
>>>Wayne:
>>>People live in a state of perpetual violence, not perpetual
>>>peace.
>>>
>
>>David:
>>Nonsense. In Beyond this Horizon, people lived in constant *preparedness*
>>for violence, not in perpetual violence.
>
>Wayne:
>Back to the aforementioned assasination attempt. It happened in a
>crowded restaurant. Fortunately, none of the parties involved made
>any wild shots after being wounded, thus injuring bystanders.
>Violence was common, and accepted; the only ones exempt wore a "peace
>brassard", which placed them so low on the social ladder that they
>were routinely mistreated. After all, after the quick gun battle, the
>rest of the patrons continued on with their meals.
>
Correction. A thing does not have to be common to be accepted.
And neither does something have to be accepted to be tolerated.
For example, in a crowded "Yuppee" hang out, some person with a leather
vest and a purple mohawk could walk in. That the patrons do not band
together to toss the "different" person out is not a sign that the
patrons "accept" this mode of dress. It is merely a sign that they
tolerate it.
And that they do nothing is not a sign that such dressed people walking
into the place is a common occurance.
If faced with a weirdly dressed person walking into a restaurant, would
you walk out? Or just stare for awhile and then continue eating?
Your comment about wild shots is unwarranted, since in BtH, it was indicated
that there was a licencing requirement, and that the people were
extraordinarily gifted physically through genetic engineering. In fact,
the control natural wore a peace brassard since he could not compete,
and the football player in suspended animation, a superb specimen for
his time, could not compete against the men he rounded up who didn't even
know the game.
One does not normally think about wild shots when we arm our police officers;
it is assumed that they are trained and able to use there weapons when
warranted without endangering bystanders. Yes, you can mention some
accidents, but these are exceedingly rare.
And BTW, if a duel broke out at the table next to you, would you remain
seated in a potential accidental shot zone? Like the wild west shoot out,
people got out of the way, and then continued whatever it was they were
doing when the shoot out was over.
[deletia]
>>David:
>>BTW, the "physically gifted freely murdering" the less talented happened
>>only in the beginning of the film to show that the villian was in fact
>>a villain. Nowhere does it show him doing this after he engaged in the
>>beginning of the duel with our hero. In fact, considering that he
>>made Marshall in Napoleon's army, and Napoleon himself had ordered a
>>stop to duelling, it seems unlikely that such a man could continuously
>>violate an order from the emperor himself and still be promoted to a
>>rank that Napoleon himself would have had to decide on.
>
>>Oh, and just for the record, the villian turned out to be an honorable
>>man, since it seems that our hero had no concern about him violating
>>the conditions placed after he had lost the duel. Query: how could
>>a black hearted scoundrel be such an honorable man?
>
>Wayne:
>I really wanted to emphasize the situation that existed before the
>dueling ban by Napoleon. Though the "villain" was portrayed as a
>bully, it was also made clear that such excess was common, and enough
>of a problem for Napoleon to ban it.
>
>I have no doubt that the honor of all parties involved was above
>reproach - this was the point of the movie, that honor was of more
>value than life itself (thus the duels between amateurs and
>professionals!) yet it was ultimately pointless. "Satisfaction" was
>totally subjective. The "code" being defended was amorphous and
>variable, depending on the "slight" and the aggressiveness of the
>"slighted" party.
>
The difference between the duels in the past and what Heinlein posited
can be seen by comparing BtH with Scaramouche, a novel about a sword
master during the course of the French Revolution. In it, the aristocrats,
who studied swordsmanship, used the allowance of duelling to, in effect,
legally murder those of the third estate (the bourgeois) who did not
come from the marshal background of the nobility. Heinlein attempts
to make the duels between those who are more or less equal - being
licenced to carry arms implied that you knew how to use them.
Actually, (if it's not too bloodthirsty for you), I think that some form
of legal duelling where the participants voluntarily enter into the
duel and they are handicapped so that they are more or less equal in
ability would be a much better way of settling some disputes than
the current court system. Pistols, however, would not be used.
The form of the duel would be rather more drawn out, giving either
party the opportunity to withdraw and apologize.
But the major advantage is it gives the duellists an opportunity
before the duel (did I mention that it should be in a location set
aside for such duels by appointment? Sorry) to consider whether or
not the squabble is worth dying over.
David MacLean
One example is the term "addiction". The meaning of addiction, and
the meaning in most dictionaries is that of physical and habitual
use of a substance, the cessation of which results in severe physical
symptoms. The word was used to describe the use of the opiates.
However, the meaning of the term has changed dramatically, and this was
intentional. It began with the finding that tobacco use was dangerous,
and therefore, some people in their zeal, wanted to stamp it out.
Thus, they eased up on the severe part of the withdrawl symptoms, replacing
it with "some" symptoms.
However, with that reduction, a whole host of other things could now
become "addictions". Where once you were a drunk, you are now an
alcohol addict. Where once you were hornier than average, you are
now a sex addict. Where once you were a high roller, you are now a
gambling addict.
And the point of the change in definition was to apply the emotional
appeal that the word addiction inspires so that intervention becomes
a requirement, so that everybody will be good little boys and girls.
The only way to effectively combat this is, when suspected, insisting
that the arguer stick with the dictionary definition of the terms
he or she uses.
I am not opposed to the language evolving, but really, if you mean something
different from the accepted meaning of a term, don't use that term. If
necessary, make up another term - this means that the language will still
evolve, but does not imply forcing the emotional baggage associated
with an old situation on a new situation.
--
David MacLean
aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
>In article <4c783u$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>In article <4c6fvt$1...@panix3.panix.com>
>>se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>>
>>>It's a very neat trick, to know what somebody else said rather than
>>>what I *think* he said.
>>
>>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
>>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
>
>with _That's Not What I Meant!_, before you open your mouth again and
>say something even more foolish.
And I strongly suggest that you read Emily Post or Miss Manners before
breaking into a thread in an insulting manner. For all I know, this
Deborah Tannen might well be onto something that will change the world,
but if a proponent of her works calls me "foolish" in an attempt to
get me to read the work, I am immediately prejudiced against the work.
Surely if your aim was to get us to read the work, it would be a much
more effective strategy to phrase your purpose in a different manner
not designed to ruffle feathers?
Or is the thesis of _That's Not What I Meant!_ that nobody will understand
what you say anyway, so phrase your words as insults?
If faced with just the title in the library, I would presume that the
work was an attempt at getting people to communicate better through
understanding. However, your recommendation style makes me doubt that.
Or, phrased in a manner like yours: Why should I read a book that
was recommended by an idiot like you?
--
Nancy Lebovitz
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>Even the U.S. democracy is based on a belief in what the people should be,
>not what they are, for if the people were truly what they should be
>to make the theory work, you would not have to imprison a greater
>proportion of your citizens than any other nation in the world.
>
democracy work. The US is imprisoning over a million people, and it
will end up destroying a good bit of such democracy as exists here,
partly due to the cost, and partly (if I recall the rules correctly)
due to the huge numbers of people who are losing their votes as the
result of being convicted of felonies.
Note that follow-ups are set to rec.arts.sf.misc. It seems like a
good place for political discussions that start here.
Lucy Sussex
Patrick Cox wrote:
> Of all these situations, the one I know the most about is
> Lebanon. Prior to the invasion of that country by forces
> fighting the war over Isreal, the Lebanese were an extremely
> armed and peaceful people. Rifles and other long guns were
> displayed openly in cars and such, as they are in the US
> heartland where crime rates are low. Handguns, while
> technically illegal, were ubiquitious. The threat of citizen
> justice was so serious that many people didn't lock their
> doors even when leaving home for days at a time.
>
> The other countries cited, I am less familiar with, but
> it is clear that state-sponsored warfare and terrorism are
> no rebuttal to the right to keep and bear arms.
...and you obviously don't know what you're talking about. A vast amount
of those countries problems arise because there are so many damn guns
around. I should know - I deal with some of the problems they cause.
Please feel free to visit any one of the countries you mention. They
will give you the respect you deserve.
Julian Warner
Peace and Goodwill to All does not need armed leverage.
Colin Campbell
<4cchko$l...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>:
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Distribution:
Holger....@ira.uka.de (Holger Hellmuth) writes:
> It's a while since I've read TMIAHM. Please tell me who or what prevents
> hired guns and (especially) gangs in that society, especially with this
> 'doesn't concern me' attitude.
"(Could have told him several things that would stop what he pictured;
he had obviously never been to Luna. As for "incorrigibles," if really
are, Luna eliminates such faster than Terra ever did. Back when I was
very young, they sent us a gangster lord, from Los Angeles, I believe; he
arrived with squad of stooges, his bodyguards, and was cockily ready to
take over Luna, as was rumored to have taken over a prison somewhere
Earthside."
"(None lasted two weeks. Gangster boss didn't make it to barracks;
hadn't listened when told how to wear a p-suit.)"
--Manny Garcia O'Kelly, p. 182, Berkley pb edition.
Stevens R. Miller
>SRM> == Stevens R Miller <l...@interport.net>
> SRM> children sometimes keep written lists of whom they are talking to,
>You seem refined enough to me. Do you use a kill file?
No; I check in from time-to-time on even the most uninteresting posters, just
on the general notion that anyone can have a moment of merit. Those with whom
I have a personal beef, of course, get a full chance to work it out with me; I
never shun anyone still trying to make peace.
>Politely ignoring someone is far, FAR more refined (IMHO) than screaming
>obscenities at them...
True. There are more options than just these two, however.
Nancy Lebovitz
Holger Hellmuth <hell...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
>
>Please clarify 'Equivocative'. My dictionary has two
>definitions of it.
>
It figures. :-)
Holger Hellmuth
[...]
>difference in my life. It would be a different story if he were family
>or friend, and I do not have the slightest idea of the motivation of
>the killer. Perhaps this person deserved killing. Perhaps not. If not,
>his family and friends will avenge him.
So his family wouldn't have avenged him if he deserved the killing. As
far as I can tell such unbiased judgement is not common with families.
[...]
>You forgot about sleeping. While it takes some expertise to sling a gun
>or handle a shiv, it takes no expertise to bash your brains out with a
>brick while you sleep. And the person that does not know how to handle
>either a gun or a knife? Well, he may not know how, but his friend might.
Or might not. Or his friends might just be only a third of the other's
friends. Not too good odds.
[...]
>What have laws done? Basically, they constrain the vast majority of those
>of us who would not commit the criminal act in the first place, while
>lulling us into a sense of security because if we behave in this fashion,
>we expect everybody else to, and if they don't, "the law" will punish them.
No, laws provide a measure so that everyone has (hopefully) equal rights.
And "the law" is a specialization of work so that not everyone has to learn
to shoot. A blind man with blind friends (as an extreme example) is happy
about that specialization.
Holger.
--
Holger Hellmuth at Uni Karlsruhe
<Holger....@informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Holger Hellmuth
>>Takes one to know one.
>Equivocative use of a term. Clarification requested.
Please clarify 'Equivocative'. My dictionary has two
definitions of it.
Do you really think communication is possible without
common background and assumptions? In less than a
lifetime naturally.
Do you really think a language is something exact like
mathematics? Eventually the words in a dictionary are
defined in terms of themselfes. Please define the word
'kindly', so that everyone on earth has the exactly
same picture in his mind, when he hears it.
Holger Hellmuth
>>right-wingers in Denver a few years ago? OK by you?
>Didn't hear about it. Couldn't care less.
Exactly. Doesn't that also mean that people without close friends or
family are essentially fair game in Heinleins society. So you have to join
a gang or you're dead. And it better be a big enough gang to be able
to retaliate against other big gangs.
>>it sounds to me like the Wild, Wild West. Judge Roy Bean, and all that.
>Quite true. However, it also sounds like Europe during the enlightenment,
>and the golden age of Rome. Judge Roy Bean is held out as an "example"
>of the wild, wild west, but in reality, he was the exception. Most "judges"
>in the west were interested in justice, not personal reputation.
Also most judges were appointed and payed by governing institutions.
Without them the local land owner/cattle baron etc. could impose his law.
>Judge Roy Bean stands out as the exception, not the rule. And he would
>not last long in the society posited by Heinlein, since there would not
>be a hired gun (sheriff or marshall) backed by a gang (posse) and all
>backed up by an even larger gang (the army).
It's a while since I've read TMIAHM. Please tell me who or what prevents
hired guns and (especially) gangs in that society, especially with this
'doesn't concern me' attitude.
--
Bronis Vidugiris
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
)In article <4c783u$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
)David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
)>In article <4c6fvt$1...@panix3.panix.com>
)>se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
)>>
)>>It's a very neat trick, to know what somebody else said rather than
)>>what I *think* he said.
)>
)>No, it's not. It simply requires the ability to comprehend the language
)>communicated in without adding your own biases thus changing the meaning.
)
)I would strongly suggest that you read some Deborah Tannen, starting
)with _That's Not What I Meant!_, before you open your mouth again and
)say something even more foolish.
)--
) --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
I suspect there is a communication problem here. I suspect that David
MacLeans point is that words have a definite and objective meaning - not
that he claims to know what the author *meant* (as in the Tannen title
you quote), but he claims to know what the author actually *said*,
which is something else entirely and conceputally different from saying
that one understood what an author *meant*.
Interestingly enough, I get this from interpreting what Mr. Maclean probably
meant, not what he actually said (?!).
Personally I generally try to understand an author's intent rather than
what they actually said, and I try (not always successfully) to write
literally what I mean.
I do change this strategy - when communications become difficult, I find it
productive to shift focus on what an author actually said and attempt
to minimize interpretation (guessing at what they meant).
Rick Cook
>Heinlein advocated an armed world, a world without without forgiveness, a
>world in which any transgression was final, a world in which apology was
>meaningless because there was never to be any further social or personal
>interaction once a conflict arose.
Well, let's see. In Beyond This Horizon how many people do the good guys --
these kill-crazed wolves -- kill in duels?
What? Zero?
Hmm. What is wrong with this picture?
--RC
Bronis Vidugiris
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> wrote:
)Well, I'm trying to convince people not to flame on the net--I think
)my chances of success are about as high as yours.
)
)Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
The net without flaming? I find it hard to envision, it's like
trying to imagine America without apple pie.
What I'd like to see is not no flaming, but flaming people for what
they actually said, rather than people misinterpreting what other people
said and flaming them over the misinterpretations. (I don't expect this
to actually happen, but it's an ideal to work for.)
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>
>aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>
>>In article <4c0gsf$b...@odin.diku.dk>,
>>Hans Rancke-Madsen <ran...@diku.dk> wrote:
>>>aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>>>
>>>>Side note on copyright: the possessor of a letter has the right to do
>>>>with it what zie will; however, the copyright still vests with the
>>>>author, and if someone other than the author publishes the letter, zie
>>>>can be sued.
>>>
>>>This is true under the Berne Convention, where you automatically have
>>>copyright to anything you write, but is it also the case under the
>>>American copyright laws?
Yes, it was -- settled in a series of court cases between 1880 and the First
World War.
I would be surprised to learn that it was. It
>>>is my impression that you had to send a copy so some official library
>>>(Library of Congress?) in order to recieve copyright to anything.
That only applied to published works, or works intended for publication;
letters were a special case.
>(BTW. someone told me that the US copyright laws are still in force when
>it comes to issues between two Americans, and that the Berne Convention
>only applies to issues between Americans and non-Americans. Is this true?
No.
However, your informant may be thinking of the peculiar language Congress
built into the bill accepting the Berne Convention that sort of limits droit
moral within the U.S., maybe. (It's very unclear language, probably
deliberately.)
--
For information on Lawrence Watt-Evans, finger -l lawr...@clark.net
or see The Misenchanted Page at http://www.greyware.com/authors/LWE/
The Horror Writers Association Page is at http://www.horror.org/HWA/
Wayne Johnson
>There are subcultures in the US today in which "disrespecting"
>somebody can get you killed. I haven't heard anything about those
>subcultures being more polite than the rest of society.
The term "dis" or "disrespect", in this millieu, is just another word
meaning "not showing obeisance or fear". In these cases, actually
being polite - such as saying "excuse me" without looking terrified -
can get you killed.
Which is the point, after all. It is totally subjective whether or
not one has been "offended". As is the level of satisfaction
necessary to make amends.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rick Cook
>Since all shootings done by professional shootists (and, like you, I have
>no figures for how common they actually were) would have been registered
>as "self-defense", the homicide rate is not very relevant.
Actually it's extremely relevant since the homicide rate in the US includes
killings in self-defense.
But more to the point there were simply not that many people gunned down in
the old west. When I was in Prescott, AZ (the old territorial capital) I
had occasion to do research in the back files of the newspapers going back
to the 1870s. There simply were not that many killings, Hollywood to the
contrary.
Even Tombstone, which is often seen as the epitome of the wild west, was
actually quite free of killings. See for example John Meyers Meyers'
history of Tombstone. Basically Tombstone's reputation for violence rested
on one incident that lasted about six seconds.
--RC
James Nicoll
Stevens R. Miller <l...@interport.net> wrote:
>
>Good comparison, Matt. I don't agree with those who say that Heinlein
>"learned" his manners at the Naval Academy. By the time he wrote "Citizen,"
>he'd had much more life under his belt to learn from. But, this matter of
>shunning and curling into a ball and killing people for spilling milk seems to
>be in lots of his writing. Regardless of where he learned it, Heinlein's work
>shows a fond approval of this you-don't-exist-to-me reaction.
Where was Heinlein from, exactly? Any Mennonites or Amish in the
vicinity? Shunning is one tool they use for social control (Although I
have to admit that I went to school with Mennonites and had one as an in-
law and never actually saw shunning in practice. Of course, the folks who
would practice shunning probably wouldn't have anything to do with me, given
a choice).
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Gary Farber
: Here's my guess as to what happened: Panshin deliberately chose a public
: arena in which to offer his apology purely for the sake of publicity.
: (After all, do you think you would have ever heard of Panshin if he
: hadn't had his famous disagreements with Heinlein? He'd just be another
: minor writer otherwise, don't you think?)
I've been trying to stay out of the judgements area of this debate, if
anyone hasn't noticed, and I generally try to avoid arguments about
Heinlein, as one of a long list of subjects I avoid, but I'll correct
matters of fact.
Alexei Panshin was a prominent member of the sf community at the time.
How do you think I recognized him? He won the Nebula for Best Novel in
1969 for RITE OF PASSAGE, beating such obscure works as Brunner's STAND
ON ZANZIBAR, Philip K. Dick's DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP,
Blish's BLACK EASTER, Joanna Russ's PICNIC ON PARADISE, Lafferty's PAST
MASTER, and Silverberg's THE MASKS OF TIME.
Plenty of opinions may be thrown back and forth about these two men and
the surrounding issues, but one thing that I am sure of is that Panshin
was not seeking publicity for his embarrassment.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
lmac...@greenheart.com
>
> In article <romm-28129...@ppp-66-1.dialup.winternet.com>
> ro...@winternet.com "David E Romm" writes:
>
> > Living by a 'code of honor' of a century past just
> ^^ ^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> > makes Heinlein look like an anal-retentive dinosaur.
>
> I presume you mean the way he made his disapproval public. If someone
> behaved that way for the same reason in this country (the UK) now, I
> would consider him justified in his resentment though perhaps unusual
> in his expression of it. I am surprised to learn (if that is indeed
> the consensus view) that reading other people's private mail without
> permission is considered normal in the US nowadays.
Once again, let's return to the core information that I believe most
people are agreed upon:
(1) Panshin was doing research for a book, in the course of which he
wrote to various people who had had some contact with Heinlein.
(2) One of the people he wrote to was Sarge Smith, who had died before
the letter was received.
(3) Opinions differ, but it appears probable that Smith's widow sent a
bundle of letters to Panshin in response to the request. (There do not
appear to me to be many other avenues by which Panshin *could* have
gotten the letters, except from the widow or a member of the family, but
I don't know.)
(4) Panshin read some of the letters, apparently determined that they
were personal in nature (and thus not appropriate to the design of his
work-in-progress) and returned them.
(5) Heinlein heard that Panshin had read the letters, came to the
conclusion that Panshin was invading his privacy, and thereafter refused
to have anything to do with Panshin.
(6) Panshin, who admired Heinlein, attempted to apologize for the
perceived breach, and attempted to explain the circumstances.
(7) Heinlein refused to listen to the apology or to the explanation.
Certainly Heinlein was within his rights to refuse to speak to Panshin.
Anyone is always within his/her rights to refuse to speak to anyone at
any time for any reason. Nevertheless, the debate is NOT about Panshin
reading personal mail; the debate is about whether or not Heinlein was a
stiff-necked so-and-so.
I think everyone, even his admirers, is agreed, that he was stiff-necked
and stubborn; the only argument is whether or not, in the circumstances,
this is a good or a bad thing.
(Following this debate, of course, many people began debating whether or
not it is polite to shoot those who disagree with you.)
-- LJM
--
Loren J. MacGregor -- lmac...@greenheart.com
--Technical & Fictional Writing and Editing--
Gary Farber
<description of AOL's apparently broken newsreader snipped>
: This thing I replied to showed up, for some weird reason, on
: rec.arts.sf.fandom, not rec.arts.sf.written (which I no longer
: receive)--or at least it did on my machine.
Cross-posted, rich. Cross-posted. You know what this means, right? It
means posted to more than one newsgroup simultaneously. When used
correctly, this is a *good* thing because it means that one message is
sent out with multiple addresses, so that it is seen on more than one
newsgroup with the same amount of bandwidth used as any other single
message.
When cross-posting is misused (generally), it is spam or spew. Over five
groups is almost certainly too many.
: I try to watch the headers to be certain I'm not posting to a news
: group I don't subscribe to--since that's rather like sending messages
: via a bottle tossed into the ocean and waitng for replies.
Yup.
: But until
: you told me this was something from another news group, I had no idea
: and assumed I was responding to an area where the person who wrote it
: could see it.
It was cross-posted to r.a.sf.f and r.a.sf.w, since it was an off-shoot of
the Heinlein thread that was cross-posted. However, I know that the
poster you were responding to is a denizen of r.a.sf.w. I'm glad I
mentioned this, then, as I've pointed out several times before, in e-mail,
that you've done this, and it seems a singular waste of your time if you
genuinely want a response from the person you are following up.
I had thought you had previously told me that AOL's broken newsreader does
allow for a follow-up cross-post, though. Perhaps I misunderstood, or
misremember.
As I side-note, I'm sympathetic to all who have to live with those
per-hour charges you have and the resulting technique of having to
download as a result. So far as I'm concerned, this would render Usenet
into Uselessnet, as it would make news-surfing utterly impossible if you
have to wait to download entire newsgroups just to glance at four
messages, or author-search, or use any of the half-dozen other methods of
non-broken newsreaders for glancing through a newsgroup (auto-searching
for a phrase in message text, say, or a word in a thread title).
It does better explain why so many people are so clueless about Usenet as
a whole, though. I grok this better now -- thanks.
Dr Gafia
Farber) writes:
>Rich, I'm kinda wondering: I know your broken newsreader has trouble
>generating a crosspost, but I believe you told me in e-mail, quite
>some time ago, that you had no problem following up a cross-post.
>
>Please forgive me if you have indeed answered this question that I've
>asked you a few times by e-mail, but why you keep breaking cross-
>posted threads to reply to someone writing from rec.arts.sf.writen,
>and post your response, usually asking a question, only in
>rec.arts.sf.fandom, starting a *new* thread, where the person you are
>addressing will probably never see it?
>
>Is this some form of obscure protest? Or merely a technical problem,
>or forgetfulness? It just keeps striking me as odd: sort of the
>Usenet equivalent of walking into a corner and mumbling to yourself.
Ah, my news reader chooses where to respond, apparently based on
something totally non-technical, such as the I Ching--or Foo knows
what. I've assumed it has generally been the group to which the
message was posted but, as Warren Brick so frequently remarked, Maybe
Not. This, for example, is--if the address I see above is not lying
to me--being sent to rec.arts.sf.fandom; at this point I can see that.
I couldn't change it without copying what I've written thus far,
getting out of what I've written, rejecting the notion of sending it
to rec.arts.sf.fandom, going on to another news group, marking
something there for response and inserting this in place of it.
I was briefly--for three days--on rec.arts.sf.written. I dropped off
because it takes between 15 and 30 minutes to download a day's
postings--and I really can't afford a lot of on-line time. When I
dropped off, I deleted all messages received directly from this news
group.
This thing I replied to showed up, for some weird reason, on
rec.arts.sf.fandom, not rec.arts.sf.written (which I no longer
receive)--or at least it did on my machine.
I try to watch the headers to be certain I'm not posting to a news
group I don't subscribe to--since that's rather like sending messages
via a bottle tossed into the ocean and waitng for replies. But until
you told me this was something from another news group, I had no idea
and assumed I was responding to an area where the person who wrote it
could see it.
--rich brown
Julian Treadwell
[snipped theory on RAH being self-centred, childish and petulant)
>
>Childishness remains childish, no matter how old the speaker is, how well he
>dresses, or how many "sirs" punctuate his tantrums. I've read this whole
>thread so far and can't find a single reason to view Heinlein's petulance as
>the behavior of a gentleman. Others have pointed out that this is a very
>subjective call; I can't argue. But, purely at the object level, it seems in
>substance to be indifferentiable from the behavior of little children. I
>think that speaks for itself.
I have to disagree. Your guesses about RAH's personality and
specifically his motivation for shunning Panshin don't square at all with
the man as I know him through his writing.
Here's my guess as to what happened: Panshin deliberately chose a public
arena in which to offer his apology purely for the sake of publicity.
(After all, do you think you would have ever heard of Panshin if he
hadn't had his famous disagreements with Heinlein? He'd just be another
minor writer otherwise, don't you think?) And I suspect RAH realised
that Panshin was using him as a free ride to celebrity status, and
chucked him off the gravy train by refusing to have anything more to do
with him.
Heinlein's writing shows him to be a deeply perceptive, highly moral and
extraordinarily mature individual. To call him childish is about as
sensible as calling Nelson Mandela vindictive.
Bob Webber
E Romm, ro...@winternet.com writes:
>Not only was Heinlein wrong about what Panshin did, he refused to listen
>to an apology. For someone who kept constructing societies where social
>lubrication was the key to success, Heinlein was being remarkably anal.
That's why he needed the... Oh, never mind. Kate was right, this
thread ain't exactly big yocks anymore.
Stevens R. Miller
>se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>There are subcultures in the US today in which "disrespecting"
>>somebody can get you killed. I haven't heard anything about those
>>subcultures being more polite than the rest of society.
>The term "dis" or "disrespect", in this millieu, is just another word
>meaning "not showing obeisance or fear".
Wayne, you have lurched into the truth. The flaw in all this "apologize or
die" crap is that an apology at gunpoint is just fear in action.
BTW: We actually had a stabbing here in NYC last week, when a man refused to
apologize for stepping on another man's foot in the subway station.
Come visit polite New York. 8-)
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>grab. I don't think that going to the dictionary is the right way to
>handle it, since adding new meanings to old words seems to be a normal
>part of change in language. It's presumably the reason that many
>words in the dictionary have multiple (but sometimes closely related)
>meanings.
Not only that, but the primary meaning of the word can change. For
examples, see 'gay' and 'queer', not to mention 'nice'.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het nipple boy
Fifth Virtual Anniversary: 363 days and counting
Stevens R. Miller
>My impression is that Heinlein was, for the most part, extremely gracious
>towards fans. And I was struck by the passage in _Glory Road_ where
>Oscar treats with kindness and dignity, an admiring oafish peasant boy.
>Perhaps courtesy extended from a position of superiority came easier
>to Heinlein (as it does for many of us) than courtesy when dealing with
>adversity from equals (Asimov/Campbell/Clarke).
That's a pretty insightful observation, Doug. I agree that it applies to me
and that I see it often in others. I've never heard of a fan telling a story
about Heinlein being anything but polite to him or her. He even sent me a
clever greeting card, in response to a note; lots of modern superstars who
aren't Heinlein's equal wouldn't do that. I met a fan (who posts here,
sometimes, but let him speak his own name) who tricked his way into a
breakfast with Heinlein at a symposium. Again, despite the subterfuge,
Heinlein's table manners were (I'm told) beyond criticism.
But to his peers, he seems to have shown a different face. Perhaps this is
because one has to let off steam somewhere? It just doesn't do, for the
gentleman to kick the dog. But to his peers... Reminds me of the point in EU
where Heinlein remarks that he once said he'd keep sending Campbell stories
until one was rejected. I've never had this much context to put that odd
remark into, but it takes on a clearer meaning now.
Bronis Vidugiris
Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
)Here's my guess as to what happened: Panshin deliberately chose a public
)arena in which to offer his apology purely for the sake of publicity.
)(After all, do you think you would have ever heard of Panshin if he
)hadn't had his famous disagreements with Heinlein? He'd just be another
)minor writer otherwise, don't you think?) And I suspect RAH realised
)that Panshin was using him as a free ride to celebrity status, and
)chucked him off the gravy train by refusing to have anything more to do
)with him.
I first heard of Panshin's disagreement with Heinlein here on the net.
Previously, I knew him mainly by his work, which received a fair amount
of acclaim as I recall, maybe even a few awards (don't recall the
specifics). I suspect he'd be more famous if he'd written more
(at least more novels).
W$
>It's a while since I've read TMIAHM. Please tell me who or what prevents
>hired guns and (especially) gangs in that society, especially with this
>'doesn't concern me' attitude.
What prevents them in any society?
Ken Arromdee
>> It's a while since I've read TMIAHM. Please tell me who or what prevents
>> hired guns and (especially) gangs in that society, especially with this
>> 'doesn't concern me' attitude.
>he had obviously never been to Luna. As for "incorrigibles," if really
>are, Luna eliminates such faster than Terra ever did. Back when I was
>very young, they sent us a gangster lord, from Los Angeles, I believe; he
>arrived with squad of stooges, his bodyguards, and was cockily ready to
>take over Luna, as was rumored to have taken over a prison somewhere
>Earthside."
> "(None lasted two weeks. Gangster boss didn't make it to barracks;
>hadn't listened when told how to wear a p-suit.)"
> --Manny Garcia O'Kelly, p. 182, Berkley pb edition.
That doesn't answer the question. The question was asking _how_ it happens.
The quote you gave baldly states that it happens and doesn't explain how.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Any creature who would disguise itself as a bone, obviously has no sense of
fair play!" -- Superboy Annual #1
Stevens R. Miller
>From: jam...@netcom.com (James Logajan)
>Subject: The Unpleasant Profession of Alexei Panshin. Was: A Heinlein Anecdote
>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 17:51:59 GMT
>Sorry, couldn't resist posting with that subject line. I promise not
>to do it again (unless provoked....)
Well, it's not totally off-topic, so (without intending to imply anything),
here's some stuff about Panshin's writing, found on the Web:
Date: 10 Jul 92
Subject: Author Lists: Alexei Panshin
From: jw...@world.std.com (John Wenn)
To: rec.arts.sf.written
_Rite of Passage_ is one of the best Heinlein juveniles that was not
actually written by Robert Heinlein. I also found his Anthony Villiers
books to be wonderfully entertaining comedy of manners, with heavy
emphasis on style and witty cynical observations on the human
condition. A fourth Anthony Villiers novel was announced in the early
70's (_The Universal Pantograph_), but this is one of those "lost"
books that will never be seen by the eyes of man.
[C] == Story Collection.
Panshin, Alexei (U.S.A., 8/14/1940- ) G
(awards: Hugo 1990 & Nebula 1968)
(husband of Cory Panshin)
Series
Anthony Villiers
Star Well (1968)
The Thurb Revolution (1968)
Masque World (1969)
Farewell to Yesterday's Tomorrow (1975) [rev. 1976] [C]
Rite of Passage (1968) [Nebula]
Transmutations (1982) [C]
with Cory Panshin
Earthmagic (1978)
Nonfiction
Heinlein in Dimension (Advent, 1968)
with Cory Panshin
SF in Dimension (Advent, 1976) [rev. 1980]
The World Beyond the Hill (1989) [Hugo]
Stevens R. Miller
>Here's my guess as to what happened: Panshin deliberately chose a public
>arena in which to offer his apology purely for the sake of publicity.
>(After all, do you think you would have ever heard of Panshin if he
>hadn't had his famous disagreements with Heinlein?
I read Panshin's book and never heard a word about this "famous" disagreement
until many years later. This thread is the first report of Heinlein being
such a gentleman that he wouldn't even listen to an apology that I have
encountered.
Regardless, you are (as you admit) guessing. I've offered three collateral
sources. What have you got?
>Heinlein's writing shows him to be a deeply perceptive, highly moral and
>extraordinarily mature individual. To call him childish is about as
>sensible as calling Nelson Mandela vindictive.
What an insult to a man who paid most of his life to his enemies, then shook
their hands when peace took over.
You judge Heinlein by his fiction, but his actions are facts. I've heard some
of his actions were fine indeed. But the Panshin event just isn't among
those, no matter how much better what he said was, than was what he did.
Douglas H. Borsom
(Christopher Davis) wrote:
> SRM> == Stevens R Miller <l...@interport.net>
>
> SRM> What's amazing about this behavior is not that it exists (little
> SRM> children sometimes keep written lists of whom they are talking to,
> SRM> and whom they are not). What's amazing is that it exists in a man
> SRM> the very same commentators regard as a refined gentleman.
>
> You seem refined enough to me. Do you use a kill file? Do you ignore the
> perpetrators of massive crosspostings, or those who gleefully incite
> flamewar after flamewar? Or do you (via superhuman speed-reading ;-) read
> every single post to rec.arts.sf.written?
>
> And if you do, do you think they all merit a response?
...
Stevens Miller mentioned Arthur Clarke, John Campbell, Isaac Asimov, and
(of course) Panshin. These people were colleagues of Heinleins, and in
the first three cases long-time acquaintances, if not friends.
To draw a comparison between Heinlein's treatment of them and the use of
killfiles and other net practices applied to the posts of strangers earns
four honks.
-doug
Douglas H. Borsom
(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
...
> Part of the reason I brought this up is that I was wondering if
> Panshin really did have the information needed to predict Heinlein's
> behavior. He might have been able to derive it from knowledge
> of Heinlein's upbringing, but I don't think it was deducible from
> the books.
Taking this a bit further, why have some placed the onus entirely on
Panshin to "predict Heinlein's behavior" and make allowances for it?
There have been several posts suggesting Panshin should have been acutely
sensitive to Heinlein and acted accordingly. But if Heinlein had
extended only minimal courtesy to Panshin and given the man a brief
hearing, things might have been resolved.
-doug
Douglas H. Borsom
Miller) wrote:
...
> It fits the model of a man whose close associates have strained, at times, to
> find polite ways around what may have been simple self-centered behavior.
> Asimov wrote that Heinlein would "grow hostile" towards those who disagreed
> with him. Campbell paid the you-don't-exist price for this, himself. Arthur
> Clarke went into Heinlein Coventry over a disagreement regarding SDI; it took
> the mediation of Heinlein's wife to get them talking again.
>
> What's amazing about this behavior is not that it exists (little children
> sometimes keep written lists of whom they are talking to, and whom they are
> not). What's amazing is that it exists in a man the very same commentators
> regard as a refined gentleman. Clarke called Heinlein, "one of the most
> courteous people I have ever known." Asimov said he had, "a courtly way
about
> him."
>
> But Asimov went on to say, "I played the peasant to his aristocrat," and "he
> had a definite feeling that he knew better and to lecture you into agreeing
> with him." It's not much to go on, but one might find a clue in these
> observations as to how the petulance of you-don't-exist can be
reconciled with
> the perception of a courtly, courteous man.
...
My impression is that Heinlein was, for the most part, extremely gracious
towards fans. And I was struck by the passage in _Glory Road_ where
Oscar treats with kindness and dignity, an admiring oafish peasant boy.
Star even comments on it, saying how proud she is of Oscar for this. And
there's the story of Heinlein's assistance of Sturgeon.
Perhaps courtesy extended from a position of superiority came easier
to Heinlein (as it does for many of us) than courtesy when dealing with
adversity from equals (Asimov/Campbell/Clarke).
-doug
Unknown
>Er... maybe I'm confused about the facts. It sounds like Mordan extracted an
>apology from Felix by threat of death. Given conditions like that, even I
>would apologize for a messy accident Felix is responsible for. Who wouldn't?
>If the deal is, "apologize or die," damned near everyone will apologize, won't
>they?
PMJI
And there is no such threat in our society? If I were to cause such an accident
today at a restaurant in New York City would I be assured that no bloodshed
would ensue if I did not apologize? The possibility would perhaps be even
greater if the spill were on a thug of one kind or another. But more likely, it
would be a solid citizen -- and even a solid citizen might be inflamed to the point
of violence if I did not apologize, but rather was rude and obnoxious about the
affair.
That code duello is not generally approved of in U.S. society does not mean
that being impolite will not inspire violence. On this thread, a while back,
someone posted some gratuitously obscene remarks to a second poster.
What would prevent the 2nd poster from taking immense offense to those remarks,
identifying where the offending poster lives, hopping a plane, then locating and bushwhacking
him? Mostly the offense is probably not worth trouble and expense of doing this
along with the fear that he (could be a she) might get caught and punished. But
it is possible that this is exactly what is occurring at this moment.
U.S. culture penalizes private vengeance, but I do not see any proof that this
actually decreases the likelihood of violence resulting from any particular
situation. In fact, it is possible that the politeness inspired by the commonly
accepted concept that you must back your words and actions with your life (as in
_Beyond This Horizon_) will be more likely to defuse the situation than otherwise.
In fact, that is exactly the purpose of polite behavior.
- Hemo jr.
Derek Andow
: bor...@netcom.com (Douglas H. Borsom) wrote:
: >Anyone care to nominate actual societies, current or historical, that they
: >believe closely parallel the armed and polite society of _Beyond this
: >Horizon_ or _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, or of the society portrayed
: >in _Starship Troopers_?
: Wow. A dangerous exercise.
: It's limited to the fuedal ideal, but in these societies, there were
: armed and polite groups:
: Feudal Japan (until around 1850)
: Feudal Europe (until around 1800)
Putting on flak jacket and ducking quickly down from the firing step
Depending upon what you mean by "Feudal" (try Marc Bloc), large
parts of Europe were not Feudal in 1800. In England at least the
remaining "dead bits" of Feudalism were formally abolished in the
legislative tidying up which followed the Restoration of Charles II.
In reality Feudalism died out due to the Black Death changing the
demographics ... if that is the strange mix of
French/Scandiavian/Anglo-Saxon society could be called strictly Feudal
anyway !
: American West (1860-1890)
: Donning asbestos suit.........
: Wayne Johnson
: cia...@ix.netcom.com
--
--
=========================================================================
Derek Andow
Email: (Work) derek%cso2...@britain.eu.net
(X400) /c=GB/a=ATTMAIL/p=CSOUK/o=MHS/dt=MHS/dv=ANDOWD (a) CSO-UK
James Logajan
Simon Slavin
jgif...@crl.com (James Gifford) wrote:
> Stevens R. Miller (l...@interport.net) wrote:
> : jgif...@crl.com (James Gifford) writes:
>
> : >in _BTH_, for example: Felix is responsible for a messy accident; the
> : >offended party's 'guardian' is clearly ready, willing and able to draw
> : >his weapon; he instead accepts Felix's apology...
>
> : Is an apology worth much, under these conditions?
>
> Er... I would think so. Shooting someone for dropping a piece of food is
> a trifle harsh. If Felix had been rude about it, Mordan would have been
> justified in drilling him. But the opportunity for apology was given and
> taken.
The food dropped inconvenienced a *guest* of Mordan's, IIRC. This means
that Mordan was concerned, not about an offence against himself, but
about something done to someone under his protection. Mordan must thus
follow all forms even if he himself thinks the offence trivial -- he has
offered someone hospitality and failed to provide it.
I'd be interested to know how Mordan would have reacted had he himself
been splashed -- probably much the same: the art of graceful negotiation
from a position of strength is one of the marks of a true gentleman.
In an armed society, everyone has pretty much the same strength which
means that *everyone* has to act like a gentleman.
RAH, apparently, had a 'far East' attitude to hospitality as illustrated
in _Cat who Walked_ when Campbell has a guest shot at his table. The
approach he took strongly resembles that of Arabic people.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin - Computing Manager (not speaker) for The Enterprise Group Ltd.
Election rally: "A mixture of carnival, worship and bribery." Harry Harrison.
P Nielsen Hayden
l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) wrote:
>But to his peers, he seems to have shown a different face. Perhaps
>this is because one has to let off steam somewhere? It just doesn't
>do, for the gentleman to kick the dog. But to his peers...
It has to be said, though, that there are plenty of stories about
Heinlein being extraordinarily generous to his peers, including people
in whom you wouldn't expect him to take an interest. For instance, when
Phil Dick was in bad shape, Heinlein loaned him significant money and
sent him long, supportive letters. On other occasions, Heinlein donated
money anonymously to help out fellow writers in trouble.
I think Alexei got a bum rap from Heinlein, who was clearly capable of
doing that. I think Heinlein was sometimes a really good guy. I think
Heinlein was a complicated character, you know? And very preoccupied
with keeping the world at bay through a series of personae, masks, false
fronts and double-blinds. I think it'll be a while before we have a
fuller picture of him.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Matt Hickman
>In article <4cbg2e$s...@hsun27.chevron.com> @ (Matt Hickman) writes:
>
>>For a human example, Let's take a look at _Citizen of the Galaxy_.
>>When Thorby came on board the Sisu, he was shunned - ignored
>>and treated as beneath contempt.
>
>Good comparison, Matt.
<snip>
I seem to be adding grist to your mill which is not my intent.
Heinlein did not treat Panshin the way that the crew of the
Sisu treated Thorby. Heinlein acknowleged and spoke to
Panshin, with icy politeness perhaps, but he spoke none the less.
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
The so-called normal man is a figment of the imagination;
every member of the human race since Jojo the cave man
right down to that final culmination of civilization, namely
me, has been as eccentric as a pet coon-once you caught
him with his mask off. (Hazel Meade Stone)
- Robert A. Heinlein _The Rolling Stones_
Phil Culmer
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
> Seth Breidbart (se...@panix.com) wrote:
> : "An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
> : various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
>
> Yes, this theory has proved itself in Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan,
> Bosnia, Rwanda, Lebanon, and so many other places, including US inner
> cities. But they probably haven't had time to "settle out."
>
> And they probably haven't read Heinlein enough. That's their problem.What Heinlein seems to be positing here, IMO, is that if ^everyone^
routinely carried a gun, then you are backing your manners with your life.
The problem in the above mentioned areas is, IMHO, that the proprtion of
people carrying guns is low enough that a gun gives an advantage. If all or
most people carried, say, a side arm, then they would lose the advantage
that they give someone who wishes to impose their will.
Thou art God.
Phil.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|her...@spuddy.mew.co.uk PGP Public Key available on request.|
|Fingerprint: AB 67 C7 38 1E E1 51 62 C0 DC AA 6B F9 A1 70 B4 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|"Between the essence and the descent falls the shadow..." |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Gary Farber
: It has to be said, though, that there are plenty of stories about
: in whom you wouldn't expect him to take an interest. For instance, when
: Phil Dick was in bad shape, Heinlein loaned him significant money and
: sent him long, supportive letters. On other occasions, Heinlein donated
: money anonymously to help out fellow writers in trouble.
Yup. But I have a note about that, too. First, though, let me say
clearly that I tremendously admire Heinlein. He's one of the few people
I've ever bothered to ask for an autograph on a book. I continue to
reread, every few years, his better books, and will continue to do so the
rest of my life, I expect. But like any large figure, there is much one
can point to, good and bad both. I don't want people to think I can only
cough up negative information about someone who has been a tremendously
positive influence on my life, even if he did like having nipples go
"spung." :-)
Having said that, and making no more of the following comment than I did
the original incident, I'll note that if you read up on Dick carefully,
including Sutin's biography, you'll note that Heinlein responded once to
Dick's situation with, I don't recall the exact figure, but some small aid
($80 and a typewriter?). Dick's then-wife then wrote Heinlein asking for
further aid, according to Sutin, I believe, and other sources, and
Heinlein then cut Dick off, giving him no further aid ever again. A
perfectly defensible stance to most people, to be sure. But worthy of
note, I think, while we are bringing up examples of Heinlein's genorosity.
You'll forgive me if I leave it to someone else to cross-post this to the
two Philip K. Dick newsgroups, right? :-)
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Gary Farber
: That doesn't answer the question. The question was asking _how_ it happens.
: The quote you gave baldly states that it happens and doesn't explain how.
I'm afraid, and this is where I draw the divide between people who enjoy
Heinlein's fiction, and those who see him as a guru/philosopher, that
this happens by authorial fiat.
There *are* gangs on Luna in MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS. But the stilyagi
are "good" gangs, more or less, because Heinlein says so.
I'm afraid that in the reality of humanity as I understand it, we'd see a
lot of arbitrary killing, vendettas, and abuse on Luna, given the
circumstances described. If you believe in humanity "as it is" not "as we
want it to be." It was, as he said, not a society for the stupid or weak.
Heinlein was not writing a prescription for how to change society. He
was writing for "beer money," remember? It would be nice for his more
fervent worshipers to remember that. Heinlein put up an electric fence
to keep out unwanted intruders, and they weren't all hippies who loved
STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND too much.
MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS is one of my favorite Heinlein books. Most of
Heinlein's societies are grand fun to visit in the imagination. But none
of them were terribly real. And he always knew that.
Max Grober
It's up now, but without any articles posted before about
14:00 PST January 3. If anyone has posted a comment on one of
my posts during this blackout and wishes a response from me,
I'd appreciate it if he or she would forward a copy to me via
e-mail. I may not be able to respond until next week, as I
will be out of town for several days starting tomorrow, but
I'll do my best to catch up when I return.
Sorry if this sounds self-important. I'm not saying anybody
*should* want a response from me. I think I've said as much
as I can say, and I'd rather give my worthy interlocutors
the last word. Given the subject of the thread, though, I
didn't want anybody to feel ignored. :)
*
Max Grober
mxgr...@oregon.uoregon.edu
Holger Hellmuth
>Holger....@ira.uka.de (Holger Hellmuth) writes:
>> It's a while since I've read TMIAHM. Please tell me who or what prevents
>> hired guns and (especially) gangs in that society, especially with this
>> 'doesn't concern me' attitude.
> "(Could have told him several things that would stop what he pictured;
>he had obviously never been to Luna. As for "incorrigibles," if really
>are, Luna eliminates such faster than Terra ever did. Back when I was
>very young, they sent us a gangster lord, from Los Angeles, I believe; he
>arrived with squad of stooges, his bodyguards, and was cockily ready to
>take over Luna, as was rumored to have taken over a prison somewhere
>Earthside."
> "(None lasted two weeks. Gangster boss didn't make it to barracks;
>hadn't listened when told how to wear a p-suit.)"
> --Manny Garcia O'Kelly, p. 182, Berkley pb edition.
Thanks. The problem I have with this paragraph is that Heinlein doesn't
tell you what mechanism stops them, but just tells you that it stopped
them ("with serveral things (I) could have told him"). Heinlein gets away
with this, he doesn't need to plug the holes, but someone who likes to
implement such a society in reality, has to.
Secondly the gangster boss was at a huge disadvantage by fighting on
unknown territory.
Holger.
--
Holger Hellmuth at Uni Karlsruhe
<Holger....@informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Holger Hellmuth
>(After all, do you think you would have ever heard of Panshin if he
>hadn't had his famous disagreements with Heinlein? He'd just be another
For what it's worth, I know Panshin only as the writer of 'Rite of Passage'.
This is the first time I hear of this incident. Don't you overestimate
Heinleins importance a bit, if you assume a handshake with him would make
Panshin famous (or if Panshin knew Heinlein would ignore him, the ignored
hand would make him famous) ?
>Heinlein's writing shows him to be a deeply perceptive, highly moral and
>extraordinarily mature individual. To call him childish is about as
>sensible as calling Nelson Mandela vindictive.
What someone writes and what he does are two pair of shoes.
Holger Hellmuth
>>It's a while since I've read TMIAHM. Please tell me who or what prevents
>>hired guns and (especially) gangs in that society, especially with this
>>'doesn't concern me' attitude.
>What prevents them in any society?
Nothing. But in tMiaHM's society there is nothing to stop them, whereas in
this society the state has (or should have) the power to keep them down.
Patterner
>I had thought you had previously told me that AOL's broken newsreader
>does allow for a follow-up cross-post, though.
Actually, it forces a cross-post follow-up; you can't edit out or add in a
group. That's something I hope they change soon. You can edit the title
on any reply (as above). As far as I know the only way to break a
cross-post with a follow-up is to not follow-up (using the reply button)
but rather to post a new message (using the New message button).
rich, if you have questions about this, feel free to e-mail me.
Marilee J. Layman
Arthur Hlavaty
them up for an sf reference book, and they hold up very well.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
Richard Newsome
encrusted under his fingernails?
I think it's bong resin...
P Nielsen Hayden
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>Having said that, and making no more of the following comment than I did
>the original incident, I'll note that if you read up on Dick carefully,
>including Sutin's biography, you'll note that Heinlein responded once to
>Dick's situation with, I don't recall the exact figure, but some small aid
>($80 and a typewriter?). Dick's then-wife then wrote Heinlein asking for
>further aid, according to Sutin, I believe, and other sources, and
>Heinlein then cut Dick off, giving him no further aid ever again. A
>perfectly defensible stance to most people, to be sure. But worthy of
>note, I think, while we are bringing up examples of Heinlein's genorosity.
Eep. Since I don't want to be coy with source materials which aren't in my
hands, I think I'm just going to have to say, um, I think Heinlein and Dick's
relationship went a bit further than Sutin says, and leave it at that. It
happens that (1) I haven't read Sutin's book yet and (2) I owe Sutin a letter
on an entirely different project. So now I'm also going to have something
else to ask him...
Rick Cook
>Taking this a bit further, why have some placed the onus entirely on
>Panshin to "predict Heinlein's behavior" and make allowances for it?
>
you -- if you know anything at all about lions. And if you've just written
a book about lions it should be assumed that you do know something of them.
If you are surprised by this you are several kinds of fool.
Such behavior says nothing about how admirable the lion's behavior is, of
course.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Perhaps courtesy extended from a position of superiority came easier
>to Heinlein (as it does for many of us) than courtesy when dealing with
>adversity from equals (Asimov/Campbell/Clarke).
>
> -doug
happened -- particularly with Campbell.
The truth of the matter is that Campbell and Heinlein were always very much
an odd couple, despite the fact that they shared some ideas and attitudes.
There was always strain in the relationship and it finally got completely
out of hand due to a mixture of personality conflicts, professional
disagreements and some issues involving their private lives.
As for Heinlein and Clarke, my understanding is that they disagreed very
strongly but Heinlein never refused to deal with Clarke. (This from someone
who knew them both pretty well and was peripherally involved in the whole
thing.)
Of course someone who is interested in painting Heinlein as an arrogant
thug will find such caveats niggling.
(And one has to wonder what such a person would have made of Campbell!)
--RC
Rick Cook
>
> Where was Heinlein from, exactly? Any Mennonites or Amish in the
>vicinity? Shunning is one tool they use for social control (Although I
>have to admit that I went to school with Mennonites and had one as an in-
>law and never actually saw shunning in practice. Of course, the folks who
>would practice shunning probably wouldn't have anything to do with me,
>given a choice).
>
Heinlein was from the Kansas City area. His roots were in Missouri, as I
recall.
You raise an interesting point, however. I wonder if anyone will now argue
that shunning was intended to wound. It would be interesting to see _that_
notion defended.
--RC
Rick Cook
>But to his peers, he seems to have shown a different face. Perhaps this is
>
>because one has to let off steam somewhere? It just doesn't do, for the
>EU where Heinlein remarks that he once said he'd keep sending Campbell
>stories until one was rejected. I've never had this much context to put
that odd
>remark into, but it takes on a clearer meaning now.
And a wrong meaning, I would venture.
AFIK, Heinlein never refused to deal with Campbell. There came a time when
they didn't like each other but I don't think they ever wrote each other
out their existence. In fact even after the split Heinlein still sold
novels to Campbell for serialization.
(In addition to the aforementioned personality clashes and personal
problems, there was also an economic issue. Astounding was the best-paying
magazine around, but like a lot of modern authors, Heinlein found he could
make more money writing novels.)
--RC
Phil Culmer
bor...@netcom.com (Douglas H. Borsom) wrote:
> Anyone care to nominate actual societies, current or historical, that they
> believe closely parallel the armed and polite society of _Beyond this
> Horizon_ or _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, or of the society portrayed
> in _Starship Troopers_?
Ken Albertson
>Sorry, couldn't resist posting with that subject line. I promise not
>to do it again (unless provoked....)
I met Alexi P at an SF convention in 1983 (Disclave in Wash DC). He
was in the vendors room selling his books. As I was an RAH fan, I
bought Heinlein in Dimension and SF in Dimension from him. We chatted
for a while about Heinlein. I found him to be a great fan of RAH,
which is also evident in his books. He is by no means a Heinlein
worshipper and I believe him to be fair and objective. By and large,
I agree with most of his opinions in these books (or at least
understand them). Since then, I have found many other SF authors have
written things independently confirming many of Panshins criticisms
(of the man, not the work). These authors include A C Clarke, I
Asimov, Poul Anderson, and Heinleins own letters. This does not mean
I don't enjoy RAH's books, which, afterall, is the main point. All
the rest is opinion. You have yours, I have mine, and Panshin has
his. What's the point of arguing that?
Jim Kasprzak
>In article <4c86h7$1...@peregrine.cs.jhu.edu>
>arro...@peregrine.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>In article <4c783m$c...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>In the society posited by Heinlein in tMiaHM, it would take courage to
>>>express disagreement with a firmly held view, and wisdom to it it in
>>>such a manner as to not arouse killing fury.
>>
>>Would it also take courage to possess the wrong skin color or be a member of
>>the wrong religion? After all, such people are often the targets of killing
>>fury even in the real world.
>>
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me as if the Nazi's could not have
>marched the Jews into the gas chambers if they knew that each Jew was armed
>and was willing to blow someone away if the attempt was made.
You are wrong.
The Jews were a minority in Germany. And the Nazis did not say "we are
taking the Jews to be exterminated". They told the German citizens that
they were removing those annoying Jews from their communities, which most
of the citizens expressed agreement with. They told the Jews that they
were being taken to a place where they could live apart from the Germans,
which the Jews may not have agreed with, but at least seemed better than
a pogrom.
Let us postulate an armed Jewish resistance against the Nazis. The Jews
start killing Nazis. The Nazis firebomb a Jewish neighborhood, then
Goebbels fires up a propaganda blitz, saying that these Jews were
threatening the lives of good German citizens, and all other law-abiding
Jews, by their actions. He promises that if the Jews will only be
reasonable and lay down their weapons, they will be taken to camps for
their own protection. Two possible endings: the Jews go along quietly,
Holocaust proceeds as scheduled, or they continue their armed resistance
and go out in a blaze of glory, just as dead as they would be in any gas
chamber. The Nazis lose some soldiers, but not nearly as many as in an
average engagement on the Eastern Front.
>And it seems to me that the night riders of the Ku Klux Klan would be a
>trifle more hesitant at attempting to lynch someone when they were pretty
>sure that that someone was armed and willing to use his weapon.
But only a trifle. Remember that the white hoods would undoubtedly be
armed as well as their victim. Probably better, in fact. How many white
shopkeepers in the South would refuse to sell guns to blacks?
>No, it would not take courage to posses the "wrong" skin color, but it
>certainly would take courage to persecute someone because they had that
>"wrong" skin color.
Courage, or superior firepower.
>And it has always taken courage to be a member of the "wrong" religion, but
>in Heinlein's world, it would take even more courage to persecute someone
>for it.
See above.
>And I find that very few, if any, bigots are courageous.
Perhaps not at the core. But it is much easier to give an imitation of
courage when you are backed up by overwhelming force.
>>About the
>>best you can do is claim that in such a society everyone will magically be
>>nice people. To which I respond that if you can postulate that the society
>>is already full of nice people, rules are irrelevant; rules have to be able
>>to work when things are not in your favor.
>
>Nothing magical about it Ken. You are either nice - or you're dead.
For everyone's definition of "nice" who could possibly harm you.
In the society you postulate, free expression disappears, because
almost anything you could say or do is bound to offend someone.
--
__ Live from the bustling metropolis of the Big Apple...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, just a guy from New York.
/____ | "And the next time I fall, I'm gonna have to recall,
\_| It isn't love, it's only something new."
*==== e-mail: jim...@panix.com
Rick Cook
>I seem to be adding grist to your mill which is not my intent.
>Heinlein did not treat Panshin the way that the crew of the
>Sisu treated Thorby. Heinlein acknowleged and spoke to
>Panshin, with icy politeness perhaps, but he spoke none the less.
>
intent to ignore but because it took them a while to work out how he fit
into their society. (See Thorby's conversations with the anthropologist.)
Utterly different situation.
--RC
Unknown
>
> some people think
>that Heinlein should be held to the standard of behavior expected of a
>mature adult human being. You, OTOH, apparently think that he should
>not have been held to any standard higher than that of a beast.
>
"Let ye who are without sin cast the first stone!" Obviously USENET is full
of the sinless for there seems to be innumerable people falling over each other
to cast stones.
IMHO there seems to be a certain number of writers on this thread
expecting Heinlein to live up to standards that the writers themselves deny
they have the obligation to achieve. One writer is willing to accuse Heinlein
of not being a "gentleman" yet is not willing to live up to the same standards
himself.
By all accounts Heinlein was "icily polite" to a man who in _Heinlein in
Dimension_ publicly dissected Heinlein's private person, making egregious
and insulting errors in the process. Heinlein apparently decided (as was his
privilege) that he did not want to have any personal contact with Panshin .
Further, Heinlein communicated this wish to Panshin by sending Panshin's letters
back unopened. Then a clueless Panshin failed to understand Heinlein's
signals and barged in on him in public. Heinlein did not present a false front
to Panshin, rather he rebuffed Panshin clearly and politely (calling him sir!).
The rebuff may have been painful to Panshin, but it was a measured
pain required to drive home Heinlein's point. If is is to be done 'tis best
done done quickly.
Another writer on this thread calls Heinlein's action "despicable." If a polite
rebuff is despicable, it is a pollution of the word. What do we then call the gulag?
What do we call the actions of Jim Jones? What do we call "ethnic cleansing?"
Those writers on this thread bemoaning Heinlein's actions are applying standards
of behavior to him (that he obviously did not accept)-as if they were the laws of nature.
Who is acting the barbarian here? We cannot impose a standard of behavior on
anyone other than ourselves and we cannot live up to anyone's standard of behavior
other than our own. If we insist on doing so, w will always be disappointed.
-Trying to live free in an unfree world-
Phil Culmer
jam...@coulomb.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> I believe the restriction on arms varied greatly from place to
> place in feudal Europe: it's hard to teach the yeomen how to use a longbow
> if they are not allowed weapons.
IIRC, this is connected with the gesture of sticking two fingers up at
someone. Poachers had the 1st and second fingers of the right hand cut off,
so that they couldn't pull a bow. There then arose the practice of
emphasising these two fingers as a gesture of defiance - to show that you
still had them.
Stevens R. Miller
>l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) wrote:
>>You judge Heinlein by his fiction, but his actions are facts. I've heard some
>>of his actions were fine indeed. But the Panshin event just isn't among
>>those, no matter how much better what he said was, than was what he did.
>The incident is fact, RAH's motives are not; and they are the subject
>of this thread, not the event itself.
Then why do you bring up his fiction?
Deeds, not words, Julian. You may feel Heinlein's actions are less important
than his motives, but I don't think the rest of this thread is that narrow.
The fact is, he *acted* like an ass; whether his *motivation* was born in a
pure heart or not is irrelevant to that fact. Hell, if motives were what
mattered, Heinlein would have had to hear Panshin out before condemning
Panshin's actions, wouldn't he?
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
DRaph61906
explains much of the current ill of our society. We would do well to
learn from Mr. Heinlein.
Don Raphael
Bronis Vidugiris
)Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
)>Since all shootings done by professional shootists (and, like you, I have
)>no figures for how common they actually were) would have been registered
)>as "self-defense", the homicide rate is not very relevant.
)
)Actually it's extremely relevant since the homicide rate in the US includes
)killings in self-defense.
Hmm - from my notes on the topic:
The Uniform Crime Report is based on police reports. The data given by
the UCR includes _only_ murder, not killings in self defense or deaths
due to negligence - and the interpretation of which is which is left
to the officer filing the report.
I don't have the UCR in front of me to veryify this (I do have
photocopies of some of the statistics but not the relevant passage
on definitons).
The UCR is the main source for data on homicides in the US of course.
)But more to the point there were simply not that many people gunned down in
)the old west. When I was in Prescott, AZ (the old territorial capital) I
)had occasion to do research in the back files of the newspapers going back
)to the 1870s. There simply were not that many killings, Hollywood to the
)contrary.
I'm pretty sure (but not positive) there are not that many killings in self
defense now, either. The idea of the would-be victim defending themselves is a
very powerful and popular one, but it doesn't seem to actually happen that
often (in a statistical sense as percentage of total homicides), the
advantages are really with the aggressor.
I don't recall seeing figures for this in the UCR, which is in many
ways a rather sloppy document, however. I belive that what figures I
have seen on self defense killings came from another source which
was restricted to spousal killing only, probably Mercy & Saltzman's
paper in the AJPH.
[Mercy & Saltzman went to the source behind the UCR, the Supplemental
Homicide Information Reports, as I recall. I wish the UCR would
report information like this, that's in part what I mean by
sloppy. But I digress.]
Jim Kasprzak
>In article <4c41l1$m...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>If the violence was not directed at you and/or yours, the answer is "Yes",
>>you should ignore it.
>Well, that's no problem then. "Any man's death dimishes me, for I am
>involved in Mankind."
No argument here, just pointing out that this is a worthwhile sentiment
and bears repeating.
>>In the society posited by Heinlein, you would have less to fear from me
>>killing you than in today's society.
Oh? Are you saying I'd be less dead?
>> The bad eggs would be quickly exterminated.
"Bad eggs?" In whose opinion? There are those who believe that people
who advocate killing another human being -- for any reason other than
self-defense or protection of another from deadly force -- are the
worst "eggs" of all.
>> Oh, I am not saying that the implimentation would not result
>>in a blood bath - it would, since all restrictions other than self
>>discipline would be removed. But after the initial phase, the remainder
>>would be tough, self-reliant - and polite.
Or dead. Survival of the best shots.
>"An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
>various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
And some people might agree, but still not think it such a good idea.
There are good reasons to be polite. In my opinion, a society whose
only justification for politeness is fear of death suffers from
moral bankruptcy.
Jim Kasprzak
>In article <4c4jmu$d...@news1.panix.com>
>awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) wrote:
>> You know, I'm convinced. Were you to begin a magazine on this
>>subject, I believe I would take a subscription. I think being ankle deep in
>>blood is a small price to pay for a little consideration, *especially* when
>>the alternative is having to be dominated by an elite.
>
>In your sarcasm, you point out the real reason why you do not understand
>Heinlein. Heinlein has stated, explicitly and implicitedly, that there
>are some things more valuable than life itself.
>
>I'm afraid that until you find something more important to you than your
>own life, you will never understand Heinlein - or the founding fathers
>of the United States.
Okay, let's use your example here. One of the principles which our
founding fathers thought was more important than their individual lives
was the protection of the free, democratic society which they had wrought.
(cf. Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty or give me Death!")
One of the aspects of that society was the right of any citizen to a
fair trial, and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Said
founding fathers cared enough about this to write it into the Bill of
Rights.
Now, the way I see it, a society which allows people to assault or kill
anyone they feel is "impolite" hardly supports one's right to a fair
trial. And I believe that depriving someone of life is the cruelest
punishment possible. Even if you don't agree with that, can you
reasonably say that the death penalty for impoliteness is not "cruel
and unusual"?
>Do you actually believe that all differences of opinion would be solved by
>killing?
That was what you seemed to be implying.
>>Right. Just keep thinking "Kitty Genovese, Kitty Genovese..."
>
>I find that I have to refuse this guilt trip. When Kitty Genovese was
>killed in New York City, I was in Edmonton, and had not yet reached double
>digits in age.
You miss the point. Kitty Genovese was allowed to die because the
people around her were following the principle which you advocate,
namely, "If this person's death does not directly concern me, why
get involved?"
>In fact, if a similar event had happened in Heinlein's L. City, a mob
>would have ripped the attacker apart at the first whimper and deposited
>him out the nearest airlock.
You can safely say this because Heinlein created a _fictional_ society
in which people would behave in such a manner. In the real world,
similar events have continued to happen since the death of Kitty Genovese.
Some have been stopped by concerned citizens. Some have not. Unless you
are the author and have complete control over the world, there are no
guarantees on human behavior.
>It requires a flexability of mind that you have so far not generated.
There seems to be more than one person guilty of this.
>>>>What about that liberal talk-show host who was assassinated by some
>>>>right-wingers in Denver a few years ago? OK by you?
>>>
>>>Didn't hear about it. Couldn't care less.
>>
>> Well, he was probably just an old rude-nik anyway.
>
>Irrelevant. I never heard of him. Didn't listen to him. His death affects
>me not in the slightest. Whether he lived or died makes not the slightest
>difference in my life. It would be a different story if he were family
>or friend, and I do not have the slightest idea of the motivation of
>the killer. Perhaps this person deserved killing. Perhaps not. If not,
>his family and friends will avenge him.
Or, one would hope, the justice system of our country. The last I heard,
murder _is_ still a crime.
>The result is that you need to be polite to *everyone*. I can see why
>you feel the need to simplify the matter.
My definition of politeness includes refraining from physical attacks
on people who have been impolite to me.
>That's the trouble - you are ridiculing a philosophy that you do not
>understand. Only if you insist on doing things that others find aggrevious
>would you live in abject terror. If you are polite,
See immediately above.
>treat others with respect,
Wouldn't you say that allowing someone to disagree with you, or carry on
practices that you disagree with, is a sign of respect?
>and do not violate others senses of propriety, you would live
>in less fear than you do right now.
What if the "others' senses of propriety" included things that I found
disagreeable? Suppose I were homosexual, and my homosexuality offended
other members of the community, who decided that all "queers" should be
killed or run out of town. Suppose enough people supported this view,
and were heavy-handed enough in enforcing it, that the rest of the
citizens were afraid to stand up for me, for fear of offending them.
Or suppose I wanted to live with my girlfiend without being married.
Suppose, again, that there was a powerful group of citizens who felt
that this was wrong. Now suppose that said girlfriend and I had a baby,
and the self-appointed guardians of morality decided that, since we
refused to follow society's conventions and marry, we were unfit to be
parents. Suppose they took the baby away, and refused to let us have
anything to do with our child, to protect it from "moral corruption".
Heinlein, as I said, was able to write the rules in _The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress_. He chose to populate his society with moral, open-
minded people. You cannot guarantte the same in the real world.
>What have laws done? Basically, they constrain the vast majority of those
>of us who would not commit the criminal act in the first place,
There seems to be a contradiction here. IF one would not violate a law
in the first place, exactly how is one constrained by that law?
>while lulling us into a sense of security because if we behave in this
>fashion, we expect everybody else to, and if they don't, "the law" will
>punish them.
I won't argue that this is the essence of the current social contract.
However, part of that contract includes the right to behave as one sees
fit, without fear of violence over a difference of opinion.
>And it encourages anti-social behavior, since instead of fearing retribution
>from anyone that they violate, the anti-socials only need fear a minute
>segment of the populace; the rest take on the appearance of sheep.
Here is a practical experiment for you. Take a walk through the poorest
and most violent neighborhoods of New York, or another major city of your
choice. Talk to the people living and working there -- those who would be
most directly affected by any social change. Ask them which they would
prefer: more cops, or a repeal of gun-control, assault and murder laws.
>If you say so. However, manners are not something to be scorned. Manners
>are a social lubricant used to smooth the action when people rub together.
>Those who scorn manners throw sand into the social machinery that doesn't
>work perfectly at the best of times (Thanks to tNoLL)
You would be wise to read the words above once more, and then ask
yourself if imposing your personal judgment on others through force or
its threat constitutes good manners.
Stevens R. Miller
>gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>>Alexei Panshin was a prominent member of the sf community at the time.
>>How do you think I recognized him? He won the Nebula for Best Novel...
>I didn't know he'd won a Nebula. I guess that throws some doubt on my
>'theory'...
>Do you have any other reason (besides the Nebula) for being sure AP
>was not seeking publicity by choosing a public arena for his apology?
Julian, I admire you for the way you take this fact into account (really, I
do). But, Gary doesn't have any burden to disprove your speculation. You're
the one who (and again, this was admirable) openly admitted it was just a
guess. One could openly guess that Panshin was a woman in male drag, too, but
I wouldn't expect that to place a burden of disproof on anyone else.
It's your theory; you have to prove it.
Gary Farber
: I didn't know he'd won a Nebula. I guess that throws some doubt on my
: 'theory'. However, winning a Nebula doesn't necessarily mean you're
: as famous or rich as you'd like to be.
: Do you have any other reason (besides the Nebula) for being sure AP
: was not seeking publicity by choosing a public arena for his apology?
It was pretty damn non-public. It was as non-public as Panshin could
make it without waiting in the street to catch Heinlein like a mugger
(and who knows how Heinlein was coming and going?).
Maybe it's my fault that I didn't describe this more clearly. I should
have anticipated that five hundred posts would try to deconstruct a few
paragraphs of my twenty-three-year-old memories; I know how sf people
react to Heinlein.
This was a tiny ante-room where Heinlein sat at a tiny card table after
his talk, signing books to a very long line of people. I hung about
because I was an obnoxious kid, even though they tried to shoo everyone
out after getting their autograph. Panshin waited until nearly the last
straggler had left, and hardly anyone was about, save for us diehards.
There were only a smattering of witnesses. He called no attention to
himself. He was profoundly embarrassed. Panshin clearly wanted to melt
into the earth.
Your theory does not, in my opinion, in any way fit the facts, and I
believe it to be completely wrong.
James Nicoll
Define 'wound'. It's intended to punish transgressors and to protect
those around them from spiritual damage from them, and it *results* in
unhappy people when used (Particularly when family members find themselves
on opposite sides of the barriers shunning sets up). Is that wounding?
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Gary Farber
: The Bird is cruel.
Paging Patrick Hayden. Will Patrick Hayden please pick up his old
apazine title at the white courtesy telephone?
Zoom.
Bronis Vidugiris
Lucy Sussex <lsu...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
)Julian Warner writes:
)> The other countries cited, I am less familiar with, but
)> it is clear that state-sponsored warfare and terrorism are
)> no rebuttal to the right to keep and bear arms.
)
)...and you obviously don't know what you're talking about. A vast amount
)of those countries problems arise because there are so many damn guns
)around. I should know - I deal with some of the problems they cause.
)
)Please feel free to visit any one of the countries you mention. They
)will give you the respect you deserve.
Well, I suspect a lot of this debate revolves around what is a "problem".
Certainly if only one side of a dispute has the guns, and the other
side doesn't, the chance for some classes of "problems" is minimized.
This is the "do what I say or else" solution to "problems".
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4ccvva$e...@news.express.co.nz> Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> writes:
>>Here's my guess as to what happened: Panshin deliberately chose a public
>>arena in which to offer his apology purely for the sake of publicity.
>>(After all, do you think you would have ever heard of Panshin if he
>>hadn't had his famous disagreements with Heinlein?
>I read Panshin's book and never heard a word about this "famous" disagreement
>until many years later. This thread is the first report of Heinlein being
>such a gentleman that he wouldn't even listen to an apology that I have
>encountered.
I'd never heard about this incident before this thread either. The
'disagreements' I was referring to were AP's vitriolic attacks on
Heinlein in 'Heinlein in Perspective' . RAH didn't respond to them,
btw.
>Regardless, you are (as you admit) guessing. I've offered three collateral
>sources. What have you got?
All right, if you insist on references, take a look at Spider
Robinson's analysis of 'Heinlein in Perspective' (sorry, don't have it
to hand so I can't give you the publisher or where it appeared - can
someone else provide these?). He viewed Panshin's arguments against
RAH as specious and emotive. Now this attitude may have been caused
by the incident discussed here (as a previous poster suggested), but I
think it equally plausible that this incident was caused by Panshin's
already existing attitude to RAH, i.e. that he made a useful ladder to
celebrity status.
>>Heinlein's writing shows him to be a deeply perceptive, highly moral and
>>extraordinarily mature individual. To call him childish is about as
>>sensible as calling Nelson Mandela vindictive.
>What an insult to a man who paid most of his life to his enemies, then shook
>their hands when peace took over.
As I (obviously) hold RAH in the highest regard, how could my remark
be an insult to NM?
Patrick Cox
: Julian Warner writes:
: Patrick Cox wrote:
: > Of all these situations, the one I know the most about is
: > Lebanon. Prior to the invasion of that country by forces
: > fighting the war over Isreal, the Lebanese were an extremely
: > armed and peaceful people. Rifles and other long guns were
: > displayed openly in cars and such, as they are in the US
: > heartland where crime rates are low. Handguns, while
: > technically illegal, were ubiquitious. The threat of citizen
: > justice was so serious that many people didn't lock their
: > doors even when leaving home for days at a time.
: >
: > The other countries cited, I am less familiar with, but
: > it is clear that state-sponsored warfare and terrorism are
: > no rebuttal to the right to keep and bear arms.
: ...and you obviously don't know what you're talking about. A vast amount
: of those countries problems arise because there are so many damn guns
: around. I should know - I deal with some of the problems they cause.
: Please feel free to visit any one of the countries you mention. They
: will give you the respect you deserve.
: Julian Warner
: Peace and Goodwill to All does not need armed leverage.
Julian Warner,
I should have known better than to get involved in this.
Your statements assume much, including a.) I have never
visited any of these countries, b.) your blanket statements
will mean something to me. Both are wrong. But, if you
want more evidence that the presense of guns does not lead
to problems, visit Switzerland or Isreal. Both have
enormous numbers of guns and, excepting political acts
in Isreal, lower crime rates than almost all countries
that prohibit citizen ownership of guns.
Julian Treadwell
>Julian Treadwell (j...@iprolink.co.nz) wrote:
>: Here's my guess as to what happened: Panshin deliberately chose a public
>: arena in which to offer his apology purely for the sake of publicity.
>: (After all, do you think you would have ever heard of Panshin if he
>: hadn't had his famous disagreements with Heinlein? He'd just be another
>: minor writer otherwise, don't you think?)
[snip]
>Alexei Panshin was a prominent member of the sf community at the time.
>How do you think I recognized him? He won the Nebula for Best Novel in
>1969 for RITE OF PASSAGE, beating such obscure works as Brunner's STAND
>ON ZANZIBAR, Philip K. Dick's DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP,
>Blish's BLACK EASTER, Joanna Russ's PICNIC ON PARADISE, Lafferty's PAST
>MASTER, and Silverberg's THE MASKS OF TIME.
>Plenty of opinions may be thrown back and forth about these two men and
>the surrounding issues, but one thing that I am sure of is that Panshin
>was not seeking publicity for his embarrassment.
>--
Julian Treadwell
>Stevens Miller mentioned Arthur Clarke, John Campbell, Isaac Asimov, and
>(of course) Panshin. These people were colleagues of Heinleins, and in
>the first three cases long-time acquaintances, if not friends.
>To draw a comparison between Heinlein's treatment of them and the use of
>killfiles and other net practices applied to the posts of strangers earns
>four honks.
Maybe. But to draw the inference from RAH's 'falling out' with the
above people that he was an abrasive person with an inability to
maintain long-term friendships (my interpretation of your point) earns
at least four more.
For a start, he maintained those friendships for *decades* before the
rows occurred. And, even though he was a person who tried very hard
to keep his private life out of the public spotlight, there are
records of many other friendships, many with fellow colleagues.
Have you ever had a falling-out with a long-time friend? If not,
you'd be pretty unusual.
Julian Treadwell
>Peace and Goodwill to All does not need armed leverage.
I think many Bosnian Muslims might disagree.
Kevin Martin
Holger....@ira.uka.de (Holger Hellmuth) spoke for Boskone:
> > "(None lasted two weeks. Gangster boss didn't make it to barracks;
> >hadn't listened when told how to wear a p-suit.)"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Emphasis added
>
> Thanks. The problem I have with this paragraph is that Heinlein doesn't
> tell you what mechanism stops them, [....]
No matter how many hired flunkies the gang boss had, there was no
substitute for listening when told how to operate HIS OWN p-suit.
More generally, the crime boss (and by extension his thugs) never
learned to distinguish between people, whom they could order
around, vs the laws of nature, which they couldn't. Without the
active cooperation of the locals who had internalized that hard
lesson, they were dead men. They just walked around a bit until
they realized it. That's the "mechanism".
(You want to SEE the mechanism in action, rent the movie "Outland",
starring Sean Connery. Hissssssss... BOOM! Yuck.)
Now, stupidity isn't so conveniently deadly in the world WE live
in, but I accept the principle as sound. Isn't one useful aspect
of literature its ability to simplify the clutter of real life and
boil it down to the essentials? Stupidity doesn't work. Thuggery
and plunder don't work. It takes longer and is harder on everyone
in real life, but the end result is the same as in Luna.
(Hmm, an efficient, disciplined thug? That reminds me of the
Prince in The Princess Bride. "I'd love to come watch you [torture
this fellow], but I've got my wife to murder, Guilder to frame for
it, an invasion to plan -- frankly, I'm swamped!")
--
Kevin Martin <can...@nic.com>
Lucy Sussex
> I should have known better than to get involved in this.
> Your statements assume much, including a.) I have never
> visited any of these countries, b.) your blanket statements
> will mean something to me. Both are wrong. But, if you
> want more evidence that the presense of guns does not lead
> to problems, visit Switzerland or Isreal. Both have
> enormous numbers of guns and, excepting political acts
> in Isreal, lower crime rates than almost all countries
> that prohibit citizen ownership of guns.
The basic issue is that guns were originally designed for killing people
and they still are. If you think killing people is okay then you're
welcome to construct all of the rationalisations you like to sustain that
viewpoint. You are simply bound to disagree with a lot of people.
We could argue endlessly about it and neither would convince the other.
You can have a parting "shot" if you like but I won't bother replying.
Have a nice, safe life.
Julian Warner.
James Logajan
: jam...@netcom.com (James Logajan) wrote:
A nice post, thanks. I reread "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag"
last weekend and couldn't help myself. After all, like Hoag, Panshin was
just going about performing one of his professions. Every possible point
of view must surely have been presented in the "A Heinlein Anecdote" thread
by now.
The Bird is cruel.
Lucy Sussex
Maybe so but not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. The UN
themselves created a large part of the "problem" (cf. the recent reply
posting on the same topic from Bronis Vidugiris). Instead of taking away
the guns from all of the bad boys, they put embargoes on some and told
the others that they were very naughty. Then the [insert naughty group
here]s came down like a wolf upon the fold etc.
julian.
Rick Cook
>Perhaps courtesy extended from a position of superiority came easier
>to Heinlein (as it does for many of us) than courtesy when dealing with
>adversity from equals (Asimov/Campbell/Clarke).
>
> -doug
Perhaps the people telling these stories don't know beans about what
happened -- particularly with Campbell.
The truth of the matter is that Campbell and Heinlein were always very much
an odd couple, despite the fact that they shared some ideas and attitudes.
There was always strain in the relationship and it finally got completely
out of hand due to a mixture of personality conflicts, professional
disagreements and some issues involving their private lives.
As for Heinlein and Clarke, my understanding is that they disagreed very
strongly but Heinlein never refused to deal with Clarke. (This from someone
who knew them both pretty well and was peripherally involved in the whole
thing.)
Of course someone who is interested in painting Heinlein as an arrogant
thugpecift find such caveats niggling.
(And one has to wonder what such a person would have made of Campbell!)
Rick Cook
>
> Where was Heinlein from, exactly? Any Mennonites or Amish in the
>vicinity? Shunning is one tool they use for social control (Although I
>have to admit that I went to school with Mennonites and had one as an in-
>would practice shunning probably wouldn't have anything to do with me,
>given a choice).
>
Heinlein was from the Kansas City area. His roots were in Missouri, as I
recall.
You raise an interesting point, however. I wonder if anyone will now argue
that shunning was intended to wound. It would be interesting to see _that_
notion defended.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Taking this a bit further, why have some placed the onus entirely on
>Panshin to "predict Heinlein's behavior" and make allowances for it?
>
If you kick a lion in the butt you shouldn't be surprised if it goes for
you -- if you know anything at all about lions. And if you've just written
a book about lions it should be assumed that you do know something of them.
If you are surprised by this you are several kinds of fool.
Such behavior says nothing about how admirable the lion's behavior is, of
course.
--RC
Mike Gannis
: Okay, let's use your example here. One of the principles which our
: founding fathers thought was more important than their individual lives
: was the protection of the free, democratic society which they had wrought.
: (cf. Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty or give me Death!")
:
: One of the aspects of that society was the right of any citizen to a
: fair trial, and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Said
: founding fathers cared enough about this to write it into the Bill of
: Rights.
:
: Now, the way I see it, a society which allows people to assault or kill
: anyone they feel is "impolite" hardly supports one's right to a fair
: trial. And I believe that depriving someone of life is the cruelest
: punishment possible. Even if you don't agree with that, can you
: reasonably say that the death penalty for impoliteness is not "cruel
: and unusual"?
Umm ... Founding Fathers such as Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, among
others? Sir, several of the Founding Fathers obviously *did* believe in
"the death penalty for impoliteness" ...
Rick Cook
> Define 'wound'. It's intended to punish transgressors and to protect
>those around them from spiritual damage from them, and it *results* in
>unhappy people when used (Particularly when family members find themselves
>on opposite sides of the barriers shunning sets up). Is that wounding?
>
I want to see if someone will argue that the Mennonites and Amish who
practice shunning do so with intent to hurt.
--RC
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4cf5te$c...@news.express.co.nz> j...@iprolink.co.nz (Julian Treadwell) writes:
>Julian, I admire you for the way you take this fact into account (really, I
>do).
Gosh, thanks. ;-/
>But, Gary doesn't have any burden to disprove your speculation.
Indeed he doesn't.
>It's your theory; you have to prove it.
No I don't. This isn't a debate, it's a discussion. I merely threw
an idea into the pot for anyone who wanted to to take up.
P Nielsen Hayden
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>James Logajan (jam...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: The Bird is cruel.
>
>Paging Patrick Hayden. Will Patrick Hayden please pick up his old
>apazine title at the white courtesy telephone?
>
>Zoom.
Gary is referring to the title of my AZAPAzine in the mid-1970s, back before I
married fellow apa member Teresa Nielsen and became Patrick Nielsen Hayden.
Schwartz.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Stevens R. Miller
>In article <4cia03$o...@rosebud.sdsc.edu> Mike Gannis <mga...@sdsc.edu> writes:
>>jim...@panix.com (Jim Kasprzak) wrote:
>>: Okay, let's use your example here. One of the principles which our
>>: founding fathers thought was more important than their individual lives
>>: was the protection of the free, democratic society which they had wrought.
>>
>>Umm ... Founding Fathers such as Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton
>
> For starters, the duel between Burr and Hamilton was not a sanctioned
>legal action, but a private dispute between individuals. It was the
>equivalent of a shootout between gang members, or a fight between two
>boys on a playground.
A few more facts: Burr was not one of the Founding Fathers. He was a
political climber who, after pissing off Jefferson during Burr's term as his
veep, tried to found his own nation, west of the Ohio river. He was found not
guilty at his treason trial, mostly because John Marshall gave a very narrow
jury instruction. He then abandoned the US and lived in Europe until 1812.
When he killed Hamilton, it was Burr who had issued the challenge, and
Hamilton who had fired his own gun into the air. Burr then murdered Hamilton
and had to cross state lines to avoid prosecution.
Rick Cook
>
>Hmm - from my notes on the topic:
>
> The Uniform Crime Report is based on police reports. The data given >by
> the UCR includes _only_ murder, not killings in self defense or deaths
> due to negligence - and the interpretation of which is which is left
> to the officer filing the report.
Well, yes and no. If a report is filed the case is treated as a homicide
for the purposes of the UCR. Police policy in almost all jurisdictions is
that all cases where one person kills another be treated as homicides in
the prelimary stages. So in effect virtually all self-defense killings are
treated as homicides initially.
(Note that this does _not_ mean that anyone is necessarily charged with
homicide. But the initial investigation is as a homicide and as a homicide
it goes into the UCR numbers.)
>)But more to the point there were simply not that many people gunned down
>in)the old west. When I was in Prescott, AZ (the old territorial capital) I
>)had occasion to do research in the back files of the newspapers going back
>)to the 1870s. There simply were not thllywood to the
>)contrary.
>
>I'm pretty sure (but not positive) there are not that many killings in self
>defense now, either.
Not just self-defense. Killings for any reason. In fact judged on the
number of homicides the 'wild west' was a pretty peaceful place compared to
most major American cities.
> The idea of the would-be victim defending themselves
>is a very powerful and popular one, but it doesn't seem to actually happen
that
>often (in a statistical sense as percentage of total homicides), the
>advantages are really with the aggressor.
Actually it happens anywhere from 3 to 600 times as often as homicides,
depending on which set of numbers you choose to believe. (The studies of
self defense tend toward the higher numbers, btw, the 3X number is an
outlier.)
>I don't recall seeing figures for this in the UCR, which is in many
>ways a rather sloppy document, however. I belive that what figures I
>have seen on self defense killings came from another source which
>was restricted to spousal killing only, probably Mercy & Saltzman's
>paper in the AJPH.
I'd suggest getting a copy of the BJS 'Murder In Large Urban Counties --
1988'. About the absolute minimum figure is one-eighth of all homicides are
eventually decided to be self-defense. A more reasonable figure is one
quarter and you can make a case that the number goes as high as half.
But that's another argument for another newsgroup and we can discuss it in
mail if you like. (I am NOT going to respond to trolls, flames, etc. to
this post.)
--RC
Rick Cook
> Another writer on this thread calls Heinlein's action "despicable." If
>a polite rebuff is despicable, it is a pollution of the word. What do we
then call
>the gulag? What do we call the actions of Jim Jones? What do we call "ethnic
>cleansing?"
>
Or to keep it within the bounds of reason -- what do you call someone who
slugs the other person? Or threatens to murder the other person? Or mounts
a campaign of harrassment against them? Which has happened in similar
circumstances with other SF authors, rest assured.
--RC
Bronis Vidugiris
)Bronis Vidugiris wrote:
)>
)>Hmm - from my notes on the topic:
)>
)> The Uniform Crime Report is based on police reports. The data given >by
)> the UCR includes _only_ murder, not killings in self defense or deaths
)> due to negligence - and the interpretation of which is which is left
)> to the officer filing the report.
)
)Well, yes and no. If a report is filed the case is treated as a homicide
)for the purposes of the UCR. Police policy in almost all jurisdictions is
)that all cases where one person kills another be treated as homicides in
)the prelimary stages. So in effect virtually all self-defense killings are
)treated as homicides initially.
Ummm - the UCR did claim to exclude killings in self defense as I
recall. I don't have the exact wording in front of me, it wasn't
quite as strong as what I wrote above, I'm sure. But I'm also fairly
sure that "self-defense" killings were listed as being excluded.
I am also somewhat skeptical myself about how well the exclusion of
self-defense killings in the UCR really works. Part of the problem is
that the UCR really is a rather "sloppy" document as I mentioned
before. What happens is that claims about what the UCR does and does
not include are made in the document itself, but these claims appear to
be authority based rather than based on explaining the data collection
methods in great detail. Publishing the text of the supplemental
homicide information reports, and including guidlines given to officers
for filling these reports out would be the "right" way to do this (IMO)
but this is not what the UCR does.
)> The idea of the would-be victim defending themselves
)>is a very powerful and popular one, but it doesn't seem to actually happen
)that
)>often (in a statistical sense as percentage of total homicides), the
)>advantages are really with the aggressor.
)
)Actually it happens anywhere from 3 to 600 times as often as homicides,
)depending on which set of numbers you choose to believe. (The studies of
)self defense tend toward the higher numbers, btw, the 3X number is an
)outlier.)
I should clarify - I'm talking not about self-defense by the use of
force where nobody was killed. I'm talking about the percentage
of dead bodies that are dead because of self-defense.
It's hard to estimate this - certainly looking at the outcome of
trials is not a good estimate, since the legal standard is to find the
defendant not guilty if there is grounds for reasonable doubt.
Can we trust police reports to get this number? I have doubts
about those, too. However, I have less doubts about police
reports than I do about our legal system given it's bias towards
the defendant (as well as some other biases I won't mention
right now). "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a pretty strong
standard of guilt, our legal system intentionally would rather
free guilty parties than falsely punish the innocent.
I'm not sure there is any really good way to get this number,
actually. However, if we pick a method (any method), and it
is fairly stable, we could at least compare current figures
to the "old west" figures, as long as we use the same method.
To me, logic does suggest that the number of times where
the victim is able to percieve the threat, react, and not
only shoot but kill the offender is going to be less than
50%, probably a whole *lot* less. I'm a bit surprised by your
3-600x claims, I'd like to see some more detail and references
if you have any.
I suspect that the key lies in exactly what is being measured
here (as is often the case), I wouldn't be surprised if these
were figures for people who drove of attacks of some unkown sort
as a ratio of people who were killed, for example.
)I'd suggest getting a copy of the BJS 'Murder In Large Urban Counties --
)1988'. About the absolute minimum figure is one-eighth of all homicides are
)eventually decided to be self-defense. A more reasonable figure is one
)quarter and you can make a case that the number goes as high as half.
Hmm - haven't seen that one, I'll have to look it up. But as
I said before, I'm very skeptical about using court decisions as
a basis for concluding how many kilings were "really" in self
defense.
ps - what newsgroups usually talk about this stuff? I suspect
talk.politics.guns, but we don't get that.
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4cf5th$c...@news.express.co.nz> j...@iprolink.co.nz (Julian Treadwell) writes:
>>l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) wrote:
>>>You judge Heinlein by his fiction, but his actions are facts. I've heard some
>>>of his actions were fine indeed. But the Panshin event just isn't among
>>>those, no matter how much better what he said was, than was what he did.
>>The incident is fact, RAH's motives are not; and they are the subject
>>of this thread, not the event itself.
>Then why do you bring up his fiction?
Because its the only way we (I) have of getting into his mind to try
to deduce his motives (an impossible task, probably).
>Deeds, not words, Julian. You may feel Heinlein's actions are less important
>than his motives
Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say that.
>, but I don't think the rest of this thread is that narrow.
>The fact is, he *acted* like an ass; whether his *motivation* was born in a
>pure heart or not is irrelevant to that fact.
That may well be your approach to judging people, but I personally
wouldn't judge anyone's actions before I thought I knew their motives.
>Hell, if motives were what
>mattered, Heinlein would have had to hear Panshin out before condemning
>Panshin's actions, wouldn't he?
Maybe he already knew them. I don't know, and neither do you. We
don't know what Panshin's motives were or what RAH's motives were and
they are crucial to judging what happened imo.
In fact, the more I think about it the less I feel we have any chance
of getting to the bottom of this (rather trivial) mystery.
Julian Treadwell
[snip]
>This was a tiny ante-room where Heinlein sat at a tiny card table after
>his talk, signing books to a very long line of people. I hung about
>because I was an obnoxious kid, even though they tried to shoo everyone
>out after getting their autograph. Panshin waited until nearly the last
>straggler had left, and hardly anyone was about, save for us diehards.
>There were only a smattering of witnesses. He called no attention to
>himself. He was profoundly embarrassed. Panshin clearly wanted to melt
>into the earth.
>Your theory does not, in my opinion, in any way fit the facts, and I
>believe it to be completely wrong.
It sounds like I probably am, I agree.
Ken Arromdee
Phil Culmer <her...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> wrote:
>What Heinlein seems to be positing here, IMO, is that if ^everyone^
>routinely carried a gun, then you are backing your manners with your life.
>The problem in the above mentioned areas is, IMHO, that the proprtion of
>people carrying guns is low enough that a gun gives an advantage. If all or
>most people carried, say, a side arm, then they would lose the advantage
>that they give someone who wishes to impose their will.
Ignore the gun factor for a moment. Just about everyone--certainly as many
people as would be armed with guns in the Heinlein society--is armed with two
usable fists. By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of
people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
Lynch mobs seem to work even though their victims routinely carry fists.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Any creature who would disguise itself as a bone, obviously has no sense of
fair play!" -- Superboy Annual #1
Bronis Vidugiris
A NEW CRIME by MARK TWAIN
From "Sketches New and Old", Copyright 1903, Samuel Clemens.
This text is placed in the Public Domain (Jun 1993, #18).
A NEW CRIME
LEGISLATION NEEDED
THIS country, during the last thirty or forty
years, has produced some of the most remark-
able cases of insanity of which there is any mention
in history. For instance, there was the Baldwin
case, in Ohio, twenty-two years ago. Baldwin, from
his boyhood up, had been of a vindictive, malignant,
quarrelsome nature. He put a boy's eye out once,
and never was heard upon any occasion to utter a
regret for it. He did many such things. But at
last he did something that was serious. He called
at a house just after dark one evening, knocked, and
when the occupant came to the door, shot him
dead, and then tried to escape, but was captured.
Two days before, he had wantonly insulted a help-
less cripple, and the man he afterward took swift
vengeance upon with an assassin bullet had knocked
him down. Such was the Baldwin case. The trial
was long and exciting; the community was fearfully
wrought up. Men said this spiteful, bad-hearted
villain had caused grief enough in his time, and now
he should satisfy the law. But they were mistaken;
Baldwin was INSANE when he did the deed -- they
had not thought of that. By the argument of
counsel it was shown that at half-past ten in the
morning on the day of the murder, Baldwin became
insane, and remained so for eleven hours and a half
exactly. This just covered the case comfortably,
and he was acquitted. Thus, if an unthinking and
excited community had been listened to instead of
the arguments of counsel, a poor crazy creature
would have been held to a fearful responsibility for
a mere freak of madness. Baldwin went clear, and
although his relatives and friends were naturally in-
censed against the community for their injurious
suspicions and remarks, they said let it go for this
time, and did not prosecute. The Baldwins were
very wealthy. This same Baldwin had momentary
fits of insanity twice afterward, and on both occa-
sions killed people he had grudges against. And on
both these occasions the circumstances of the killing
were so aggravated, and the murders so seemingly
heartless and treacherous, that if Baldwin had not
been insane he would have been hanged without the
shadow of a doubt. As it was, it required all his
political and family influence to get him clear in one
of the cases, and cost him not less than ten thousand
dollars to get clear in the other. One of these men
he had notoriously been threatening to kill for twelve
years. The poor creature happened, by the merest
piece of ill fortune, to come along a dark alley at
the very moment that Baldwin's insanity came upon
him, and so he was shot in the back with a gun
loaded with slugs.
Take the case of Lynch Hackett, of Pennsylvania.
Twice, in public, he attacked a German butcher by
the name of Bemis Feldner, with a cane, and both
times Feldner whipped him with his fists. Hackett
was a vain, wealthy, violent gentleman, who held
his blood and family in high esteem, and believed
that a reverent respect was due to his great riches.
He brooded over the shame of his chastisement for
two weeks, and then, in a momentary fit of insanity,
armed himself to the teeth, rode into town, waited a
couple of hours until he saw Feldner coming down
the street with his wife on his arm, and then, as the
couple passed the doorway in which he had partially
concealed himself, he drove a knife into Feldner's
neck, killing him instantly. The widow caught the
limp form and eased it to the earth. Both were
drenched with blood. Hackett jocosely remarked
to her that as a professional butcher's recent wife
she could appreciate the artistic neatness of the job
that left her in condition to marry again, in case she
wanted to. This remark, and another which he
made to a friend, that his position in society made
the killing of an obscure citizen simply an "eccen-
tricity" instead of a crime, were shown to be evi-
dences of insanity, and so Hackett escaped punish-
ment. The jury were hardly inclined to accept these
as proofs at first, inasmuch as the prisoner had never
been insane before the murder, and under the tran-
quilizing effect of the butchering had immediately
regained his right mind; but when the defense came
to show that a third cousin of Hackett's wife's step-
father was insane, and not only insane, but had a
nose the very counterpart of Hackett's, it was plain
that insanity was hereditary in the family, and
Hackett had come by it by legitimate inheritance.
Of course the jury then acquitted him. But it was
a merciful providence that Mrs. H.'s people had
been afflicted as shown, else Hackett would certainly
have been hanged.
However, it is not possible to recount all the mar-
velous cases of insanity that have come under the
public notice in the last thirty or forty years. There
was the Durgin case in New Jersey three years ago.
The servant girl, Bridget Durgin, at dead of night,
invaded her mistress' bedroom and carved the lady
literally to pieces with a knife. Then she dragged
the body to the middle of the floor, and beat and
banged it with chairs and such things. Next she
opened the feather beds, and strewed the contents
around, saturated everything with kerosene, and set
fire to the general wreck. She now took up the
young child of the murdered woman in her blood-
smeared hands and walked off, through the snow,
with no shoes on, to a neighbor's house a quarter
of a mile off, and told a string of wild, incoherent
stories about some men coming and setting fire to
the house; and then she cried piteously, and with-
out seeming to think there was anything suggestive
about the blood upon her hands, her clothing, and
the baby, volunteered the remark that she was
afraid those men had murdered her mistress! After-
ward, by her own confession and other testimony, it
was proved that the mistress had always been kind
to the girl, consequently there was no revenge in the
murder; and it was also shown that the girl took noth-
ing away from the burning house, not even her own
shoes, and consequently robbery was not the motive.
Now, the reader says, "Here comes that same old
plea of insanity again." But the reader has deceived
himself this time. No such plea was offered in her
defense. The judge sentenced her, nobody perse-
cuted the governor with petitions for her pardon,
and she was promptly hanged.
There was that youth in Pennsylvania, whose
curious confession was published some years ago.
It was simply a conglomeration of incoherent drivel
from beginning to end, and so was his lengthy
speech on the scaffold afterward. For a whole year
he was haunted with a desire to disfigure a certain
young woman, so that no one would marry her.
He did not love her himself, and did not want to
marry her, but he did not want anybody else to do
it. He would not go anywhere with her, and yet
was opposed to anybody else's escorting her. Upon
one occasion he declined to go to a wedding with
her, and when she got other company, lay in wait
for the couple by the road, intending to make them
go back or kill the escort. After spending sleepless
nights over his ruling desire for a full year, he at
last attempted its execution -- that is, attempted to
disfigure the young woman. It was a success. It
was permanent. In trying to shoot her cheek (as
she sat at the supper table with her parents and
brothers and sisters) in such a manner as to mar its
comeliness, one of his bullets wandered a little out
of the course, and she dropped dead. To the very
last moment of his life he bewailed the ill luck that
made her move her face just at the critical moment.
And so he died, apparently about half persuaded
that somehow it was chiefly her own fault that she
got killed. This idiot was hanged. The plea of
insanity was not offered.
Insanity certainly is on the increase in the world,
and crime is dying out. There are no longer any
murders -- none worth mentioning, at any rate.
Formerly, if you killed a man, it was possible that
you were insane -- but now, if you, having friends
and money, kill a man, it is EVIDENCE that you are a
lunatic. In these days, too, if a person of good
family and high social standing steals anything, they
call it KLEPTOMANIA, and send him to the lunatic
asylum. If a person of high standing squanders his
fortune in dissipation, and closes his career with
strychnine or a bullet, "Temporary Aberration" is
what was the trouble with HIM.
Is not this insanity plea becoming rather common?
Is it not so common that the reader confidently ex-
pects to see it offered in every criminal case that
comes before the courts? And is it not so cheap,
and so common, and often so trivial, that the reader
smiles in derision when the newspaper mentions it?
And is it not curious to note how very often it wins
acquittal for the prisoner? Of late years it does not
seem possible for a man to so conduct himself,
before killing another man, as not to be manifestly
insane. If he talks about the stars, he is insane. If
he appears nervous and uneasy an hour before the
killing, he is insane. If he weeps over a great grief,
his friends shake their heads, and fear that he is
"not right." If, an hour after the murder, he
seems ill at ease, preoccupied and excited, he is
unquestionably insane.
Really, what we want now, is not laws against
crime, but a law against INSANITY. There is where
the true evil lies.
END.
Dr Gafia
(Patterner) writes:
>Actually, it forces a cross-post follow-up; you can't edit out or add in
a
>group. That's something I hope they change soon. You can edit the title
>on any reply (as above). As far as I know the only way to break a
>cross-post with a follow-up is to not follow-up (using the reply button)
>but rather to post a new message (using the New message button).
>
>rich, if you have questions about this, feel free to e-mail me.
Actually, if I use the *New message* button, it's STILL an automatic post
in the "Send to" section; it just offers me a blank subject line and a
blank box to post my comments in. So presumably it would be an automatic
crosspost as well. This is using my off-line reader; perhaps the
situation changes if I sign on and get "on" the news group.
I do note that I can opt to post to a news group AND send the item to the
author via e-mail at the same time, when I'm signed on; is there any way
to do that using the off-line reader?
--rich brown
Colin Campbell
person kills another, it's homicide, whether in self defense or not. When
a cop kills a crook, it's homicide. Justifiable homicide, but still
homicide.
Some of the Old West figures and the murder rates in big cities in the
19th century are understated because some people weren't counted as
humans. If a New York cop found a dead Irishman in the street in 1850, it
was a littering problem, usually.
Anne B. Nonie Rider
workable are ignoring cases with more than two people.
Those who want to do armed violence to others have a strong
tendency to gather in groups. The Klan, the Crips and Bloods,
the redneck farmers who don't want any of Your Kind around
here, the fraternity brothers out for a good night's rape.
Meanwhile, the average non-violent citizen would like to spend
his time and effort on other things than staying in groups to
fight off the above.
I prefer a political system that tries to protect single
individuals, whether armed or not, from groups that regularly
seek out others to victimize.
Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on? Those of us who break
any of those "norms" already know about mob thought and
mob violence, and by and large we don't want more of it.
--Nonie
Ken Arromdee
>> Thanks. The problem I have with this paragraph is that Heinlein doesn't
>> tell you what mechanism stops them, [....]
>learned to distinguish between people, whom they could order
>around, vs the laws of nature, which they couldn't.
Unless all thugs are universally unwilling to do what is necessary to live
with the laws of nature, this does _not_ answer the question. It only gives
one specific case.
>(Hmm, an efficient, disciplined thug?
Think Nazis.
(As usual, Godwin's Law is inapplicable on the grounds of relevance.)
Patterner
>Actually, if I use the *New message* button, it's STILL an automatic post
>in the "Send to" section; it just offers me a blank subject line and a
>blank box to post my comments in. So presumably it would be an automatic
>crosspost as well. This is using my off-line reader; perhaps the
>situation changes if I sign on and get "on" the news group.
No, this lets you post just to the group you're currently reading, and not
any others. I've done this several times when I wanted to answer
questions on alt.online-service.america-online and didn't want to
cross-post to alt.aol-sucks. It does fill in the name of the group you're
reading, but it doesn't cross-post.
>I do note that I can opt to post to a news group AND send the item to the
>author via e-mail at the same time, when I'm signed on; is there any way
>to do that using the off-line reader?
No, that wasn't built in, but I hear it's a commonly-requested feature, so
the next version may have it.
Marilee J. Layman
Scott Lindenthaler
If you are truly interested in this topic I suggest you read
RAH, RAH, R.A.H by Spider Robinson. Currently in print in a
collection of short stories called "Time Travelers Strictly Cash".
Christopher Davis
KA> By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of people
KA> carrying fists should be well-mannered.
KA> Lynch mobs seem to work even though their victims routinely carry fists.
Unfortunately, my fists are far less capable than those of, say, convicted
felon Mike Tyson.
However, assuming similar training, a firearm in my hands does not
generate the same imbalance.
This thread is far off topic for the groups in question. Followups set.
--
Christopher Davis * <c...@kei.com> * <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/ >
[ PGP & MIME gladly accepted / PGP keys on keyservers, WWW page, finger ]
You know the Internet is too commercialized when... you go to "Internet
World" and the Microsoft booth is 8 times the size of the Cisco booth.
Barry DeCicco
|> Thanks for including this--I had no idea that the insanity defense was
|> so old. Does anyone know if there's a correlation between successful
|> temporary insanity defenses and wealth?
|>
I'm willing to believe a very strong correlation between successful legal
defenses in general, and wealth.
Barry
|> There's some interesting material in WOMEN WHO KILL about how Lizzie
|> Borden (who was well off) wasn't convicted.
|>
|> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
|>
|> 12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
|>
|>
|>
Pam Wells
lmac...@greenheart.com "lmac...@greenheart.com" writes:
> (Following this debate, of course, many people began debating whether or
> not it is polite to shoot those who disagree with you.)
Surely that would only be polite if you said 'excuse me' beforehand and
'sorry' afterwards?
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk "Tudor for TAFF"
Alvin R. Mullen II
the Confusion SF/Fantasy Con. Jan. 12th-14th.(Tim Powers is the GOH)
"The Chronicles of Scar" by Ron Sarti.
I read it last week, and thought it was very good. It is basically, in
the
fantasy style, but has no fantasy in it. Set several hundred years in
the
future, war and pestilance have shrunk the population to a fraction of
what
it is today, and man has rejected technology. The government has
reverted to
royality and magic exists, but only as advanced psyhic powers some have
developed. It chronicles the life of Arn Brant (Prince Scar) from lost
bastard son of the royal family, to the reluctant champion of the North
American country of Kenesee.
Kevin Martin
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) seemed to say:
> Unless all thugs are universally unwilling to do what is
> necessary to live with the laws of nature, this does _not_
> answer the question. It only gives one specific case.
> > (Hmm, an efficient, disciplined thug?
> Think Nazis.
[Godwin's Law waiver granted.]
OK. I'll see your SchutzenStaffel and raise you an Evil Empire.
Or in two words: Atlas Shrugged.
Not saying it's great literature, just that I *knew*, deeply and
fully, that the Soviet Union was doomed, twenty years before the
death certificate was actually signed.
ObHeinlein: "I can get along with a Randite." - Prof. de la Paz
Followups set to a.f.heinlein.
--
Kevin Martin <can...@nic.com> http://www.nic.com/~cannon/
Brass Cannon Consulting - let us help polish your brass cannon
Nancy Lebovitz
so old. Does anyone know if there's a correlation between successful
temporary insanity defenses and wealth?
There's some interesting material in WOMEN WHO KILL about how Lizzie
Nancy Lebovitz
Alex Rosser <lxro...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>When looking at the statement "An armed society is a polite society", is
>it possible that some people are confusing polite vs. impolite and safe
>vs. dangerous? Most of the counter-examples offered seem more "dangerous"
>than neccesarily "impolite".
>
What I can't figure out is why people are so fascinated by "An armed
society is a polite society"--there's no evidence that there's a strong
correlation in the real world, and, considering that Heinlein only
said it once, I don't even know if he believed it any more than he
believed that centrally controlled economies could work. (BEYOND
THIS HORIZON has a very successful, prosperous centrally controlled
economy.)
P Nielsen Hayden
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>You have trouble dealing with a Palimpsest? :-) Isn't a Usenet thread a
>form of Palimpsest? Wasn't "Palimpsests" one of the second series of
>Terry Carr Ace Specials? (Not to be confused with the Non-Terry Carr Ace
>Specials.) Wasn't Tennesee Williams the Great Bird of the Galaxy? Didn't
>Gene Roddenbery write "The Glass Menagerie" all about Uhura's delicate
>condition after her pregnancy by James Kirk, and how she kept a set of
>glass 3d chess pieces while Talosians wished to trick her into a new
>pregnancy? Didn't Gore Vidal play a Federation Senator in that, and also
>write a screenplay of Kirk's Academy days, "Dress Yellow"?
You're thinking of THE STARSHIP AND THE PILLAR. Vidal couldn't sell a
screenplay for fifteen years after that one, so he wrote DUNE MESSIAH and THE
WHENABOUTS OF BURR instead.
Robert Neinast
b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) says:
> Internet Wiretap Edition of
>
> A NEW CRIME by MARK TWAIN
>
> This text is placed in the Public Domain (Jun 1993, #18).
Here's a bit more Twain, of similar interest and applicability.
It's from Chapter 7 of Book 2 of _Roughing It_, copyright 1871
(so I imagine it is in the public domain, too).
. . .
The men who murdered Virginia's original twenty-six cemetary occupants
were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented
trial by jury, and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure
justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth
century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless
he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency,
it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for *defeating*
justice that human wisdon could contrive. For how could he imagine that
we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had
stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we
would go on using his candle-clock after we had invented chronometers?
In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a
jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were
called to try--but in our day of telegraphs and newspapers his plan compels
us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system
rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains.
I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a
jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most
wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and
all men capable of reading read about it. And of course all men not deaf
and dumb and idiotic talked about it. A jury list was made out, and
Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen was questioned precisely
as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
"Have you heard of this homicide?"
"Yes."
"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"
"Yes."
"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"
"Yes."
"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"
"Yes."
"We do not want you."
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of
high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence
and unblemished reputation; a quartz-mill owned of excellent standing,
were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the
public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that
sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable
him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts.
But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses
alone could mete out unsullied justice.
When the peremptory challenges were all exhaused, a jury of twelve men
was impaneled--a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked
about, nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle
in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush, and the stones in the
streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two
low beer-house politicians, three barkeepers, two ranchmen who could not
read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward,
that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?
The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium
upon ignorance, stupidity, and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue
to use a worthless system because it *was* good a thousand years ago. In
this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence, and probity,
swears that testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street
talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred
jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice
would be far safer in his hands than in theirs. Why could not the jury
law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty an *equal chance*
with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to
one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast
is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the
legislature. I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as
to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury-box
against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no
doubt I shall be defeated--every effort I make to save the country
"misses fire."
--
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (r...@cbebl1.att.com)
AT&T-Bell Labs (Columbus, OH)
Wayne Johnson
>Especially where the society frowns on people acquiring the means and
>skills required to defend themselves.
Which society is that? I can arm myself with a large variety of
extremely lethal weapons, and train myself and my family how to use
them; and I don't need to discuss it with anybody, or have their
approval.
Unless you are a convicted criminal, you have the same right.
My Boy Scout troop contains several excellent skeet shooters and and
riflemen. They're a darn sight better trained and educated than the
average Joe who watches Die Hard and thinks he knows something.
Not one of their parents objected, when asked if they wanted their
boys to be trained in the use of weapons - and these kids come from a
wide swatch of society.
Frowning doesn't impress me; perhaps you're more sensitive? Or are
you just whining for effect?
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Gary Farber
Guys, as the fellow who initiated this thread, I'd like to make a request
now. Various folks on rec.arts.sf.fandom, some of whom have to pay to
download the newsgroup, have long wearied of this discussion. This has
never really had much to do with sf fandom, per se, in the first place.
So I'd like to ask if you would be so kind as to set your followups to
either just alt.fan.heinlein, rec.arts.sf.written, or both, or elsewhere,
but please remove rec.arts.sf.fandom from now on. Everyone who is
interested knows where to go to find the discussion, and this way it won't
cost people extra money to download a group that has become a bit
overwhelmed with this single thread.
Thanks muchly for your consideration, and enjoy the rest of the debate.
:-)
Say, do all of you know the story of how Heinlein showed up at the '62
Chicago Worldcon for his Hugo. . . ? ;-)
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Seth Breidbart
>If you kick a lion in the butt you shouldn't be surprised if it goes for
>you -- if you know anything at all about lions. And if you've just written
>a book about lions it should be assumed that you do know something of them.
But if you're working on a book about lions, you might not have
learned that information yet.
Seth
Daniel Blum
> Thanks for including this--I had no idea that the insanity defense was
> so old. Does anyone know if there's a correlation between successful
> temporary insanity defenses and wealth?
I don't have any sources available at the moment, but I seem to recall
that Dan Sickles was the first to use it (at least, the first to use it
successfully) when he shot his wife's lover. He was in Congress at the time;
I believe that was in the late 1860s (he was an inept Union general before
that, and the ambassador to Spain afterwards).
> There's some interesting material in WOMEN WHO KILL about how Lizzie
> Borden (who was well off) wasn't convicted.
> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
> 12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
_______________________________________________________________________
Rick Cook
A great deal which doesn't address my point. Heinlein, this alleged
worshipper of bloodlust who had drawn a picture of a society of wolves
ready to kill at the curl of a lip, managed to write a whole book about
them without having a single person killed in a duel.
Again, what is wrong with this picture?
>Perhaps it's been awhile since your read the book,
> but Heinlein goes
>to great pains to note that these "wolves" had survived
> - in fact, been naturally selected
> - by an extremely bloody vetting of the species.
>The less capable wolves had all died, violently.
> And it's implied
>that one stayed in condition for battle at all times - Felix teased
>his obtuse mathmetician friend about failing to practice constantly,
>as it could get him killed.
Would you care to try to support these contentions? I don't think you can.
And I'll suggest to you the book is not what you think it is.
--RC
Rick Cook
> I don't even know if he believed it any more than he
>believed that centrally controlled economies could work. (BEYOND
>THIS HORIZON has a very successful, prosperous centrally controlled
>economy.)
The evidence, I think, is that he didn't. Not fundamentally.
BTH was written in the 1930s (and revised in the 40s for book publication,
as I recall). It was about what would happen if all the problems facing the
world in the Great Depression (want, poverty, totalitarianism, disease,
etc.) were solved and what the result would be.
Heinlein's conclusion was that a) people wouldn't much change and b) most
folks would be bored out of their skulls. The society he concocted was an
elaborate game to be played by bored people. His model was very much more
18th Century English aristocrats than, say, the Old West. In fact his model
of dueling and extreme concern for manners was pretty much a steal. Notice
also the details like the men comparing fingernail polish at the party,
following the fashion in restaurants, etc. Notice that the productive
people (like the scientists out on Pluto) don't have time for such things
as dueling.
This, of course, raises the question of 'why continue'? Why keep the race
going if that's all there is? That's Hamilton Felix' central question,
after all, and Heinlein spends the last third of the book, after the action
is over, answering it. (Which is why the book appears unbalanced to some
readers. The entire conspiracy is a subplot and essentially an aside. I
suspect Heinlein stuck it in there to give the magazine the action the
readers craved.)
Personally I don't think Heinlein much liked the society he had created for
BTH.
--RC
Rick Cook
I'd suggest that you go looking for factual support for your contentions.
Then, if you wish, we can continue this in mail or in a newsgroup more
appropiate to the subject.
--RC
>In almost all of these killings, those involved know each other. This
>implies that there is an alternative method of conflict resolution,
>which is not taken by those involved. The idea that we can call a
>killing self defense in such circumstances says that there is no
>alternative to killing - something that is obviously not true, given
>the lower incidence of such an outcome in other countries with similar
>conditions.
>
>Whenever someone trots out the self-defense scenario, I have immediate
>questions. True self-defense almost always involves the immediate
>threat of death or serious injury, usually at the hands of a stranger.
>The incidents where someone shoots a housebreaker, or kills someone
>robbing their business, does not comprise anywhere near 25 or 50
>percent of the killings in this country; but if you include the
>circumstances where death could have been avoided before the killing
>started, you might wind up with such a figure.
>
Rick Cook
>
>Unless all thugs are universally unwilling to do what is necessary to live
>with the laws of nature, this does _not_ answer the question. It only
>gives one specific case.
Known many thugs? I met a lot of them as a newspaper reporter on the police
and court beats. In general they are not very good at dealing with the real
world. This is a matter of inclination, training and world view.
For an example in a more forgiving enviornment, ask yourself how many 'made
guys' are airplane pilots.
>>(Hmm, an efficient, disciplined thug?
>
>Think Nazis.
This isn't nearly the counter-example you think it is.
Further, consider that while some thugs are trainable this implies someone
who's willing to train them to live in an environment where you're only a
partition away from vacuum.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Ignore the gun factor for a moment. Just about everyone--certainly as many
>people as would be armed with guns in the Heinlein society--is armed with
>of people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
>
Do you know very many skilled martial artists? The ones I have known have
all been pretty peaceful. The true masters are the most peaceful,
inoffensive bunch of men and women you can imagine.
In general I've found a strong correlation between peacefulness and
politness on one hand and ability on the other in the martial arts. (Which
is not to say there aren't some real losers out there who claim to be
proficient martial arts masters. In general, in my experience, they are
incorrect.)
--RC
Rick Cook
>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
>heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on? Those of us who break
>any of those "norms" already know about mob thought and
>mob violence, and by and large we don't want more of it.
Making assumptions about people over the net is a good way to look foolish.
As it happens I know people who are strongly attracted to Heinlein's 'armed
society' who are all of those things above and in various combinations.
For example around here there's a strong correlation between that attitude
and the Dianiac neo-pagans, many of whom are lesbians.
Which is not to say there isn't merit in your main point.
--RC
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>For example around here there's a strong correlation between that attitude
>and the Dianiac neo-pagans, many of whom are lesbians.
'Here' being La-La Land, right? No wonder.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
There may or may not be a smiley above.
Rick Cook
You raise some good points here about 'homicide', the UCR, et al. However
this will take us far afield from the subjects of any of these newsgroups.
Perhaps we should take this to mail?
--RC
Rick Cook
>When he killed Hamilton, it was Burr who had issued the challenge, and
>Hamilton who had fired his own gun into the air. Burr then murdered
>Hamilton and had to cross state lines to avoid prosecution.
>
Perhaps, but irrelevant to the poster's point. If Burr was not a Founder,
Hamilton most definitely was.
--RC
Wayne Johnson
>Wayne Johnson wrote:
>A great deal which doesn't address my point. Heinlein, this alleged
>worshipper of bloodlust who had drawn a picture of a society of wolves
>ready to kill at the curl of a lip, managed to write a whole book about
>them without having a single person killed in a duel.
>Again, what is wrong with this picture?
I don't know who is picturing Heinlein as a worshipper of bloodlust.
Are you reading minds again?
I didn't write the book. Heinlein gave a graphic illustration of the
hair trigger under which these people lived. In several anecdotes and
illustrations, he showed both the stress and status of being
aggressive. Remember Felix's initial contempt of the man who wore a
Peace Brassard, only to find that the man was a Control Natural?
Your question reminds me of that of a child raised on Freddy Kreuger
movies, watching Bela Lugosi's Dracula and wondering why anybody would
call it a horror film.
I noticed that in another post, you made the excellent point that this
book was more than an actioner - the last third of the book dealt with
the ennui felt by Felix and others, chafing under the rather static
society in which they lived. This was almost a separate book, and
raised many issues about the society RAH created there - and you made
good points, with which I agree. Very perceptive - so why this
"whatcha mean, Wayne" nonsense now?
You noted that the action, including the great shoot-out, may have
been just fodder for the action fans, with which I agree - so why are
you playing the wide-eyed innocent, wondering where all this mass
murder by wolves is supposed to take place?
Heinlein wasn't writing The Destroyer #47; he clearly stated that
offstage events, as paraphrased below, created this society. The
single illustration of the matter of fact calling out of Mordan in the
restaurant is graphic enough to prove the point that routine killings
in public didn't faze diners enough to break off from dinner. That is
a chilling scene. I guess you want every other character to say,
"Draw, podnuh," or otherwise, this book is about a nation of sheep.
>>Perhaps it's been awhile since your read the book,
>> but Heinlein goes
>>to great pains to note that these "wolves" had survived
>> - in fact, been naturally selected
>> - by an extremely bloody vetting of the species.
>>The less capable wolves had all died, violently.
>> And it's implied
>>that one stayed in condition for battle at all times - Felix teased
>>his obtuse mathmetician friend about failing to practice constantly,
>>as it could get him killed.
>Would you care to try to support these contentions? I don't think you can.
>And I'll suggest to you the book is not what you think it is.
>--RC
Your suggestion implies that you're a better telepath than Felix's
kid, which I doubt.
Support what contentions? It's straight out of the book. You read
it. I have, too, probably too many times to count. Look it up; it's
near the scene where the poor devil comes out of the time capsule, and
reintroduces football to the society - and darn near gets killed, by
the highly aggressive modern men.
Remember now? If you still need proof, I'll dig up my copy and post
the passage, word for word, though what is listed above is fairly
close.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rick Cook
> I think you guys are confusing "murder" and "homicide." When one
>person kills another, it's homicide, whether in self defense or not. When
>a cop kills a crook, it's homicide. Justifiable homicide, but still
>homicide.
Loose speaking. I meant homicide rather than murder.
> Some of the Old West figures and the murder rates in big cities in the
>19th century are understated because some people weren't counted as
>humans. If a New York cop found a dead Irishman in the street in 1850, it
>was a littering problem, usually.
In general this wasn't true in the West. The exception was Indians and not
necessary then if they died in town.
--RC
Rick Cook
>workable are ignoring cases with more than two people.
>
Too many people who think Heinlein's fictional politics are workable -- or
evil -- ignore the man's penchant for satire, not to mention setting up
situations to further his story ideas.
--RC
Douglas H. Borsom
...
> I don't have any sources available at the moment, but I seem to recall
> that Dan Sickles was the first to use it (at least, the first to use it
> successfully) when he shot his wife's lover. He was in Congress at the time;
> I believe that was in the late 1860s (he was an inept Union general before
> that, and the ambassador to Spain afterwards).
>
I believe the insanity defense was first used in the US in the 1840s, and the
defense was successful. As I recall, it had to do with a political
assasination.
and the result was the defendant spent the rest of his life in a mental
hospital.
Be damned if I can recall where I read this.
Stevens? You out there?
-doug
Stevens R. Miller
>BTH was written in the 1930s (and revised in the 40s for book publication,
>as I recall). It was about what would happen if all the problems facing the
>world in the Great Depression (want, poverty, totalitarianism, disease,
>etc.) were solved and what the result would be.
>Heinlein's conclusion was that a) people wouldn't much change and b) most
>folks would be bored out of their skulls. The society he concocted was an
>elaborate game to be played by bored people.
That's a very enlightening view of BTH, Rick. Do you have any collateral
support for it? The book always has seemed an odd data point in the Heinlein
sample set. Placing it in the context of the time RAH wrote it is, IMHO, good
literary analysis. I'd just be curious to know if this is an original idea of
your own, or if it has received any other consideration.
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Cecil Rose
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> Where was Heinlein from, exactly? Any Mennonites or Amish in the
>>vicinity? Shunning is one tool they use for social control (Although I
>>have to admit that I went to school with Mennonites and had one as an in-
>>law and never actually saw shunning in practice. Of course, the folks who
>>would practice shunning probably wouldn't have anything to do with me,
>>given a choice).
>>
>Heinlein was from the Kansas City area. His roots were in Missouri, as I
>recall.
>You raise an interesting point, however. I wonder if anyone will now argue
>that shunning was intended to wound. It would be interesting to see _that_
>notion defended.
Shunning was a well known, though not frequent, practice at US
Military Academies, usually for those who violated the honor code but
had found some way to beat the 'regular' system.
There are/were Mennonite and Shaker colonies in Tennessee and
Kentucky, both states that border Missouri. Don't know of any Amish.
Cecil Rose
ala...@earthlink.net
Carson, California
Anne B. Nonie Rider
> Wasn't Tennesee Williams the Great Bird of the Galaxy? Didn't
> Gene Roddenbery write "The Glass Menagerie" all about Uhura's delicate
> condition after her pregnancy by James Kirk, and how she kept a set of
> glass 3d chess pieces while Talosians wished to trick her into a new
> pregnancy? Didn't Gore Vidal play a Federation Senator in that, and also
> write a screenplay of Kirk's Academy days, "Dress Yellow"?
Or, as X-Files fans would have it, "The truth is Way Out, there."
--Nonie
Cecil Rose
>Stevens R. Miller wrote:
>>But to his peers, he seems to have shown a different face. Perhaps this is
>>
>>because one has to let off steam somewhere? It just doesn't do, for the
>>gentleman to kick the dog. But to his peers... Reminds me of the point in
>>EU where Heinlein remarks that he once said he'd keep sending Campbell
>>stories until one was rejected. I've never had this much context to put
>that odd
>>remark into, but it takes on a clearer meaning now.
>And a wrong meaning, I would venture.
>AFIK, Heinlein never refused to deal with Campbell. There came a time when
>they didn't like each other but I don't think they ever wrote each other
>out their existence. In fact even after the split Heinlein still sold
>novels to Campbell for serialization.
Hmm.. Which ones? "Glory Road" (early 60's) was F&SF as I recall.
>(In addition to the aforementioned personality clashes and personal
>problems, there was also an economic issue. Astounding was the best-paying
>magazine around, but like a lot of modern authors, Heinlein found he could
>make more money writing novels.)
>--RC
Rich Rostrom
> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net) wrote:
> I don't have any sources available at the moment, but I seem to recall
> that Dan Sickles was the first to use it (at least, the first to use it
> successfully) when he shot his wife's lover. He was in Congress at the time;
> I believe that was in the late 1860s (he was an inept Union general before
> that, and the ambassador to Spain afterwards).
The first use of the insanity defense was in Britain around 1845. A man
attempted to kill the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel. He was prevented,
but killed one of Peel's servants, a footman, in the struggle.
At his trial the would-be assassin was revealed as a hopeless lunatic, and
was the first person to be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The Sickles/Key case was different.
Dan Sickles was a prominent Tammany Democrat and US Representative from
New York. In 1859, he discovered his wife was having an affair with a man
named Key (the son of the author of the "The Star Spangled Banner", BTW).
He confronted Key and shot him dead. He got off with plea of "temporary
insanity", but his real appeal was to the "unwritten law". His attorney
was Edwin Stanton, one of the country's leading lawyers, who was Secretary
of War under Lincoln.
Sickles then compounded the scandal by a public reconciliation with his
straying spouse.
BTW, Sickles' war record is respectable. An ardent Unionist, he recruited
a whole brigade of volunteers, and was commissioned brigadier general by
Lincoln. He led his brigade capably in several battles, and was promoted
to division and corps command. At Chancellorsville, his corps fought well
in spite of direct orders from the army commander which were obvious
mistakes that Sickles protested vigorously. At Gettysburg, he
mispositioned his troops against orders which seemed another mistake. In
the subsequent action his corps was beaten and Sickles had a leg shot off.
The subsequent controversy between Sickles and Meade (his commander at
Gettysburg), and their respective supporters, consumed "a Caspian Sea of
ink."
A final BTW - Sickles' leg is still on display at the Army Medical Museum
in Washington DC.
--
Rich Rostrom | There is something the matter with our bloody
R-Ro...@bgu.edu | ships today. Steer two points toward the enemy.
(312) CRIMINY | - Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty, RN, at Jutland.
Rich Rostrom
The first use of the insanity defense was in Britain around 1845. A man
attempted to kill the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel. He was prevented,
but killed one of Peel's servants, a footman, in the struggle.
At his trial the would-be assassin was revealed as a hopeless lunatic, and
was the first person to be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The Sickles/Key case was a little different.
Dan Sickles was a prominent Tammany Democrat and US Representative from
New York. In 1859, he discovered his wife was having an affair with a man
named Key (the son of the author of the "The Star Spangled Banner", BTW).
He confronted Key and shot him dead. He got off with plea of "temporary
insanity", but his real appeal was to the "unwritten law". His attorney
was Edwin Stanton, one of the country's leading lawyers,later Secretary of
War under Lincoln.
Sickles then compounded the scandal by a public reconciliation with his
straying spouse.
BTW, Sickles' war record was respectable. An ardent Unionist, he recruited
Timothy Morris
>By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of
>people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
>
I suspect they pretty much were when that was all there was.
lmac...@greenheart.com
>
> In article <30E9D0...@greenheart.com>
> lmac...@greenheart.com "lmac...@greenheart.com" writes:
>
> > (Following this debate, of course, many people began debating whether
> > or not it is polite to shoot those who disagree with you.)
>
> Surely that would only be polite if you said 'excuse me' beforehand and
> 'sorry' afterwards?
"I have killed you, Tom Swift. Sorry."
--
Loren J. MacGregor -- lmac...@greenheart.com
--Technical & Fictional Writing and Editing--
Bronis Vidugiris
)Bronis:
)
)You raise some good points here about 'homicide', the UCR, et al. However
)this will take us far afield from the subjects of any of these newsgroups.
)
) Perhaps we should take this to mail?
Mail is fine with me. [So is posting, for that matter, but I'm sort
of jaded about strict newsgroup aplicability - though I would
recommend cutting out r.a.sf.fandom.]
Daniel Blum
> In article <4cp2i3$b...@Mercury.mcs.com>, to...@mcs.com wrote:
> ...
> > I don't have any sources available at the moment, but I seem to recall
> > that Dan Sickles was the first to use it (at least, the first to use it
> > successfully) when he shot his wife's lover. He was in Congress at the time;
> > I believe that was in the late 1860s (he was an inept Union general before
> > that, and the ambassador to Spain afterwards).
> >
> I believe the insanity defense was first used in the US in the 1840s, and the
> defense was successful. As I recall, it had to do with a political
> assasination.
> and the result was the defendant spent the rest of his life in a mental
> hospital.
> Be damned if I can recall where I read this.
> Stevens? You out there?
> -doug
You're probably right - I was referring to the temporary insanity defense,
which is different. I didn't make that particularly clear - sorry.
Stevens R. Miller
>Douglas H. Borsom (bor...@netcom.com) wrote:
>> I believe the insanity defense was first used in the US in the 1840s...
>> Stevens? You out there?
>You're probably right - I was referring to the temporary insanity defense,
>which is different.
Actually, it's not. The only jurisdictions that recognize a plea that
differentiates itself from "guilty" and "not guilty" by reference to the
mental state of the defendant do not (to my knowledge) further subdivide that
plea into "temporary" and "not temporary."
Some do make a distinction between whether or not the plea goes to guilt
versus responsibility (in the former, the defendant who wins most likely goes
to the hospital, instead of to prison, and does not have a criminal record; in
the latter, the defendant who wins most likely goes to a prison hospital and
has a criminal record; in either case, it is interesting to note that the
defendant who "wins" will probably spend more time in custody than if they had
simply plead "guilty" in the first place).
Gary Farber
: You're thinking of THE STARSHIP AND THE PILLAR. Vidal couldn't sell a
: screenplay for fifteen years after that one, so he wrote DUNE MESSIAH and THE
: WHENABOUTS OF BURR instead.
Ah, yes, his tale of the young gay man on the generation ship where
hetersexuality was mandatory. A shocking tale in its day. A shame
Vidal's mainstream writings were rejected then and he was forced to turn
to sf, though it was a wonderful thing for our field, of course.
Congratulations to you for getting Vidal and Richard Dreyfuss to
colloborate on their new book. I hope it sells well. I adore Vidal's
tales, though I felt his DUNE sequels were a bit much -- but the David
Lynch adaption was a masterpiece.
I understand that the late Senator Philip Dick tried his hand at sf
before turning to his immensely successful mainstream work. I wonder what
sf he might have written, before he had that infamous "pink beam"
experience and walked off into the desert after his coup attempt
against his father-in-law, Nixon, failed.
Since Julie burned all of his papers, I guess we'll never know, but it's
fun to speculate.
--
-- Gary Farber Middlemiss gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 for DUFF Brooklyn, NY, USA
Patrick Cox
: Patrick Cox wrote:
: > I should have known better than to get involved in this.
: > Your statements assume much, including a.) I have never
: > visited any of these countries, b.) your blanket statements
: > will mean something to me. Both are wrong. But, if you
: > want more evidence that the presense of guns does not lead
: > to problems, visit Switzerland or Isreal. Both have
: > enormous numbers of guns and, excepting political acts
: > in Isreal, lower crime rates than almost all countries
: > that prohibit citizen ownership of guns.
: The basic issue is that guns were originally designed for killing people
: and they still are. If you think killing people is okay then you're
: welcome to construct all of the rationalisations you like to sustain that
: viewpoint. You are simply bound to disagree with a lot of people.
: We could argue endlessly about it and neither would convince the other.
: You can have a parting "shot" if you like but I won't bother replying.
: Have a nice, safe life.
: Julian Warner.
Gee, thanks for permission to make a parting shot. Regardless,
I have nothing against pacifists, even those like yourself
who insult people via the safety of the net. I, however, will
never give up the right to defend myself or my family with
deadly force. Anybody who does, in my opinion, invites chaos.
My wife will never live in a society that says a 200 pound
rapist is to be protected from 100 pound female victims with
38. specials.
Cordially,
Patrick
--
pc...@netcom.com
Bert Clanton
Miller) wrote:
> In article <4cnrd2$t...@news2.delphi.com> rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) writes:
>
> >BTH was written in the 1930s (and revised in the 40s for book publication,
> >as I recall). It was about what would happen if all the problems facing the
> >world in the Great Depression (want, poverty, totalitarianism, disease,
> >etc.) were solved and what the result would be.
>
I don't know when BTH was WRITTEN, but it was first PUBLISHED as a
two-part serial in the spring of 1942 in Astounding Science Fiction. (I
was a teen-aged subscriber at the time.)
It was one of RAH's "Anson MacDonald" novels.
Best regards,
Bert
--
"For what we are beginning to wake up to today ...is that we have for
millenia structured our social instititions and our systems of values
precisely in ways that serve to block, distort, and pervert our enormous human yearning for loving connections."---Riane Eisler, "Sacred Pleasure", p. 383
Anne B. Nonie Rider
>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
>heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on? Those of us who break
>any of those "norms" already know about mob thought and
>mob violence, and by and large we don't want more of it.
rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) responded:
> Making assumptions about people over the net is a good way to look foolish.
> As it happens I know people who are strongly attracted to Heinlein's 'armed
> society' who are all of those things above and in various combinations.
Assuming that asking a question is the same as making an assumption
is also a good way to look foolish. I asked the question, not
rhetorically, but because I wanted to know the answer.
I have only met a few exceptions to the list above, myself, and
they were all either young women who had not yet encountered violence,
or sullen (physically) crippled men who romanticize masculinity.
I therefore wanted to know whether this was representative, or whether
other folks had different experience.
Aside from the Dianic neo-pagans, do you find other patterns
among the folks you know who support the idea?
--Nonie
Tom Perry
>Having said that, and making no more of the following comment than I did
>the original incident, I'll note that if you read up on Dick carefully,
>including Sutin's biography, you'll note that Heinlein responded once to
>Dick's situation with, I don't recall the exact figure, but some small aid
>($80 and a typewriter?). Dick's then-wife then wrote Heinlein asking for
>further aid, according to Sutin, I believe, and other sources, and
>Heinlein then cut Dick off, giving him no further aid ever again. A
>perfectly defensible stance to most people, to be sure. But worthy of
>note, I think, while we are bringing up examples of Heinlein's genorosity.
Eighty or a hundred dollars (which is what I recall Heinlein's loan to
Dick as being) was not "small" in those days, Gary. Allow for
inflation. Depending on just when this was, you'd have to
multiply the amount by 10 to 20 times to reach an equivalent
in today's money. (I think the loan was in the fifties, so the
multiplier would be closer to 10, I think.) Surely you wouldn't
characterize eight hundred to sixteen hundred dollars as "small"?
For comparison, nickel candy bars were larger than the ones that now
cost from 60 cents to a dollar; paperback books were 25 cents new;
SF magazines cost 25 to 35 cents; PLAYBOY cost 50 cents, and was
regarded as Very Expensive.
Sorry if I sound like an oldster pounding a cane on the floor, but
I've long been concerned about the way changing prices can distort
the nature of an investment or an act of kindness from past years.
I half-remember a case of an SF pro donating ten dollars towards
the cost of a party his fans were holding - this back in the thirties
or forties. As recorded at the time, it was a gesture of great
generosity; when read later, it was the act of a piker, a token of
contempt.
As Heinlein commented about the magazine contest that supposedly
inspired him to write his first story, ="In 1939, fifty dollars would
fill three station wagons with groceries. Now I can carry fifty
dollars' worth of groceries with one hand. Perhaps I have
grown stronger."= (Extended Universe)
Tom Perry tomp...@nettally.com
Daniel Blum
> In article <4cp2i3$b...@Mercury.mcs.com>, to...@mcs.com wrote:
> > Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net) wrote:
> > I don't have any sources available at the moment, but I seem to recall
> > that Dan Sickles was the first to use it (at least, the first to use it
> > successfully) when he shot his wife's lover. He was in Congress at the time;
> > I believe that was in the late 1860s (he was an inept Union general before
> > that, and the ambassador to Spain afterwards).
> The first use of the insanity defense was in Britain around 1845. A man
> attempted to kill the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel. He was prevented,
> but killed one of Peel's servants, a footman, in the struggle.
> At his trial the would-be assassin was revealed as a hopeless lunatic, and
> was the first person to be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
> The Sickles/Key case was different.
> Dan Sickles was a prominent Tammany Democrat and US Representative from
> New York. In 1859, he discovered his wife was having an affair with a man
> named Key (the son of the author of the "The Star Spangled Banner", BTW).
> He confronted Key and shot him dead. He got off with plea of "temporary
> insanity", but his real appeal was to the "unwritten law". His attorney
> was Edwin Stanton, one of the country's leading lawyers, who was Secretary
> of War under Lincoln.
I meant to say that it was the first temporary insanity defense, but I
didn't make it very clear.
> Sickles then compounded the scandal by a public reconciliation with his
> straying spouse.
> BTW, Sickles' war record is respectable. An ardent Unionist, he recruited
> a whole brigade of volunteers, and was commissioned brigadier general by
> Lincoln. He led his brigade capably in several battles, and was promoted
> to division and corps command. At Chancellorsville, his corps fought well
> in spite of direct orders from the army commander which were obvious
> mistakes that Sickles protested vigorously. At Gettysburg, he
> mispositioned his troops against orders which seemed another mistake. In
> the subsequent action his corps was beaten and Sickles had a leg shot off.
> The subsequent controversy between Sickles and Meade (his commander at
> Gettysburg), and their respective supporters, consumed "a Caspian Sea of
> ink."
It seems that every time I see him mentioned in a Civil War history these
days his name has an adjective attached - "loathsome" and "abominable"
are the two that stick in my mind :).
> A final BTW - Sickles' leg is still on display at the Army Medical Museum
> in Washington DC.
> --
> Rich Rostrom | There is something the matter with our bloody
> R-Ro...@bgu.edu | ships today. Steer two points toward the enemy.
> (312) CRIMINY | - Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty, RN, at Jutland.
Rick Cook
>I don't know who is picturing Heinlein as a worshipper of bloodlust.
>Are you reading minds again?
Mild exaggeration, Wayne. Re-read Sara's original post about BTH to see how
mild.
The point stands. Here we have these people living under these hair trigger
conditions, in a book written by man who some feel approved throughly of
the situation and yet we find them going to great lengths _not_ to kill
each other in duels. In fact none of them do in the book.
Once more, what is wrong with this picture?
[snip]
> Heinlein gave a graphic illustration of the
>hair trigger under which these people lived. In several anecdotes and
>illustrations, he showed both the stress and status of being
>aggressive.
And he also showed how these people kept it under control. How in fact they
would avoid a fight unless they felt honor-bound to fight, which in
practice meant their opponents had left them no way out. (Now granted, _we_
see a simple way out, but this isn't our society. Nor, I maintain, is it
Heinlein's in the sense that he approved of the way things were done.)
I've listed several examples of this behavior.
> Remember Felix's initial contempt of the man who wore a
>Peace Brassard, only to find that the man was a Control Natural?
You mean the bartender? That doesn't come across that way at all.
[snip]
>I noticed that in another post, you made the excellent point that this
>book was more than an actioner - the last third of the book dealt with
>the ennui felt by Felix and others, chafing under the rather static
>society in which they lived.
Excuse me, it wasn't just the last third of the book that made the point.
It was the -entire- book, including the custom of dueling. Remember the
title of the first chapter, to take just one more example of many. Or
consider the discussion between Felix and his friend about nail polish when
we first meet them.
> This was almost a separate book, and
>raised many issues about the society RAH created there - and you made
>good points, with which I agree. Very perceptive - so why this
>"whatcha mean, Wayne" nonsense now?
Because quite frankly I don't think a reading of the book will support your
contentions. Would you like to try with appropiate quotes and page numbers?
You can start with your claims about the effects of natural selection in
this society.
>You noted that the action, including the great shoot-out, may have
>been just fodder for the action fans, with which I agree - so why are
>you playing the wide-eyed innocent, wondering where all this mass
>murder by wolves is supposed to take place?
Because very simply it's not there. Go look for it.
There is an attempted rebellion which is put down easily and which we see
from the standpoint of a few people holed up defending a critical place.
That's the big battle scene, remember.
Now, do you remember how the Monitors ended the battle? Do you remember the
wholesale slaughter of the revolutionaries?
If you do your memory's playing tricks on you because no such thing
happened. Instead the monitors gassed everyone with sleep gas to put them
to sleep. Real bloodthirsty pack of wolves you got there.
(For that matter, just for grins, count the number of times and the context
in which the word 'wolves' occurs in the book.)
>Heinlein wasn't writing The Destroyer #47; he clearly stated that
>offstage events, as paraphrased below, created this society.
Can you support this? If you re-read the section you're referring to, I
think you'll see it doesn't say what you think it does.
> The single illustration of the matter of fact calling out of Mordan in the
>restaurant is graphic enough to prove the point that routine killings
>in public didn't faze diners enough to break off from dinner.
Excuse me, but Mordan isn't the one who is called out. It is also clear
from what is said there and elsewhere that this is unusual. Generally duels
are arranged in the Regency fashion with seconds calling on each other,
etc.
> That is a chilling scene. I guess you want every other character to say,
>"Draw, podnuh," or otherwise, this book is about a nation of sheep.
What I want is support for your contentions. So far I've seen pity little.
In fact I'd say every one of the statements I listed is either wholly or
partially wrong.
>Your suggestion implies that you're a better telepath than Felix's
>kid, which I doubt.
Why? Because I read the book more carefully than you apparently did?
>Support what contentions? It's straight out of the book.
Wrong. You think they are straight out of the book. They are in general not.
For example your statements about natural selection are utter nonsense
because NATURAL SELECTION DOESN"T WORK IN THIS SOCIETY. You may recall one
of the major features of BTH is a form of genetic engineering. None of
those people, except the control naturals, are examples of natural
selection of anything.
> You read
>it. I have, too, probably too many times to count. Look it up; it's
>near the scene where the poor devil comes out of the time capsule, and
>reintroduces football to the society - and darn near gets killed, by
>the highly aggressive modern men.
If you recall those 'highly aggressive' modern men go to considerable
lengths to keep from killing the poor devil. Which includes coming up with
a highly unusual (for them) contest to prevent a gun duel with the
inevitable result.
>Remember now? If you still need proof, I'll dig up my copy and post
>the passage, word for word, though what is listed above is fairly
>close.
Perhaps you'd better re-read it, including the part about how the matter
was eventually settled.
In fact perhaps you'd better re-read _all_ of it.
--RC
Rick Cook
>In article <4cnu9d$6...@news2.delphi.com>, Rick Cook <rc...@BIX.com> wrote:
>>
>>For example around here there's a strong correlation between that attitude
>>and the Dianiac neo-pagans, many of whom are lesbians.
>
>'Here' being La-La Land, right? No wonder.
>--
> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Nope, the right-wing wilds of Arizona.
--RC
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> The first use of the insanity defense was in Britain around 1845.
> The Sickles/Key case was a little different.
> A final BTW - Sickles' leg is still on display at the Army Medical Museum
> in Washington DC.
I have found that any conversation with Rich Rostrom is always
educational. This posting reminded me of this observation all over
again.
--
O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/
- ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
/ \ (_) (_) / | \
| | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
\ / Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET
- - Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43009::HIGGINS
Cecil Rose
>In article <DOnwmCI$9o90...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>,
>Phil Culmer <her...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> wrote:
>>What Heinlein seems to be positing here, IMO, is that if ^everyone^
>>routinely carried a gun, then you are backing your manners with your life.
>>The problem in the above mentioned areas is, IMHO, that the proprtion of
>>people carrying guns is low enough that a gun gives an advantage. If all or
>>most people carried, say, a side arm, then they would lose the advantage
>>that they give someone who wishes to impose their will.
>Ignore the gun factor for a moment. Just about everyone--certainly as many
>people as would be armed with guns in the Heinlein society--is armed with two
>usable fists. By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of
>people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
You can't really ignore the gun factor, though. Considering only
fists, the imopetus would be for everyone to be polite to the biggest,
stongest, meanest guy around, and rude to the wimps.
The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
observed, is a great equalizer.
Nancy Lebovitz
>Stevens R. Miller wrote:
>>
>>>Heinlein's conclusion was that a) people wouldn't much change and b) most
>>>folks would be bored out of their skulls. The society he concocted was an
>>>elaborate game to be played by bored people.
>>
>>That's a very enlightening view of BTH, Rick. Do you have any collateral
>>support for it? The book always has seemed an odd data point in the
>>Heinlein sample set. Placing it in the context of the time RAH wrote it
>is, IMHO,
>>good literary analysis. I'd just be curious to know if this is an
>original idea
>>of your own, or if it has received any other consideration.
>>
>fairly regularly, reinforced the idea.
As of 1971, at least, Panshin thought that BTH was a really excellent
Heinlein novel--if I recall correctly, he thought BTH was Heinlein's
best.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Rick Cook
> In fact even after the split Heinlein still sold
>>novels to Campbell for serialization.
>
> Hmm.. Which ones? "Glory Road" (early 60's) was F&SF as I recall
Was indeed. However "Double Star" and "Citizen of the Galaxy" were in
Astounding in the mid-to-late 50s.
The split really happened back in the early 50s, I am told.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>>Heinlein's conclusion was that a) people wouldn't much change and b) most
>>folks would be bored out of their skulls. The society he concocted was an
>>elaborate game to be played by bored people.
>
>That's a very enlightening view of BTH, Rick. Do you have any collateral
>support for it? The book always has seemed an odd data point in the
>Heinlein sample set. Placing it in the context of the time RAH wrote it
is, IMHO,
>good literary analysis. I'd just be curious to know if this is an
original idea
>of your own, or if it has received any other consideration.
>
Actually I first encountered the notion in Panshin. Re-reading BTH, as I do
fairly regularly, reinforced the idea.
There's a lot of support for the idea in the book, starting with the title
of the first chapter, the opening paragraphs of the novel and continuing
through to that 'tacked-on' final third of the book.
I suspect the extremely libertarian nature of the society was a 'solution'
to the problem of totalitarianism, which was a major problem in the late
30s -- at least if you were an American. In fact virtually everything a
late 1930s average American would consider as a serious social problem has
been solved in BTH.
I think it was Damon Knight who observed that Heinlein will go after an old
chestnut in science fiction the way a bright 10-year-old with a screwdriver
goes after an alarm clock -- and usually manage to find a new, fresh
approach to the situation. I think Heinlein was doing that with the notion
of utopia in BTH.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Aside from the Dianic neo-pagans, do you find other patterns
>among the folks you know who support the idea?
>
As to others -- well, a pretty broad spectrum of folks actually. Some
support it more strongly than others. (And BTW: some of those neo-pagans
are women who have experienced truly horrific violence in their personal
lives.)
--RC
ctas...@acm.org
>Too many people who think Heinlein's fictional politics are
>workable are ignoring cases with more than two people.
>
>Those who want to do armed violence to others have a strong
>tendency to gather in groups. The Klan, the Crips and Bloods,
>the redneck farmers who don't want any of Your Kind around
>here, the fraternity brothers out for a good night's rape.
>
>Meanwhile, the average non-violent citizen would like to spend
>his time and effort on other things than staying in groups to
>fight off the above.
The average non-violent citizen agrees to a social contract where a gang is hired
called "POLICE" to protect them from the other gangs. The only problem is our gang
only retaliates. The citizen still has to protect himself.
>I prefer a political system that tries to protect single
>individuals, whether armed or not, from groups that regularly
>seek out others to victimize.
You like many seem to think that duels and shootouts would be the norm. Most bad
guys would not be given that chance. The defense to others for your actions is that
the bad guy needed killing. How you went about it doesn't matter except in
evaluating if the method was to harsh.
As in TMIAHM - The young men who asked Manny to judge didn't offer to duel the man,
who had insulted the girl, they were just going to shove him out a lock. The guy who
made fun of the LASER gunners was just spaced. Once the bad guys were shown by their
actions they were disposed of.
>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
>heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on? Those of us who break
>any of those "norms" already know about mob thought and
>mob violence, and by and large we don't want more of it.
Mob violence is stopped by people standing up to the mob with enough firepower to
impress upon the mob the danger of their actions. Today the police don't stop mobs.
They just try and control them. If a mob is after you today don't look to anyone
but yourself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Hamilton CTAS...@acm.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Woodward
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
> In article <4cvtrt$c...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>, ala...@earthlink.net
> (Cecil Rose) wrote:
>
> > The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
> > observed, is a great equalizer.
>
> Tell it to the natives.
They found it so. But they couldn't overcome the US Army's real advantages
- logistics (soldiers didn't have to worry about their next meal),
manpower (always more recruits), and buffalo hunters (who destroyed the
Plains indians economic base in a decade).
Mark Eaton
> arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
> >Ignore the gun factor for a moment. Just about everyone--certainly as many
> >people as would be armed with guns in the Heinlein society--is armed with two
> >usable fists. By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of
> >people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
>
> You can't really ignore the gun factor, though. Considering only
> fists, the imopetus would be for everyone to be polite to the biggest,
> stongest, meanest guy around, and rude to the wimps.
>
> The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
> observed, is a great equalizer.
>
until those predisposed to guns/violence start carrying Uzis. Then
everyone will need an Uzi. Until someone shows up with a Bazooka... ad
infinitum.
The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
Keith Wood
[In article <4cf3lm$k...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
[Holger....@ira.uka.de (Holger Hellmuth) spoke for Boskone:
[> > "(None lasted two weeks. Gangster boss didn't make it to barracks;
[> >hadn't listened when told how to wear a p-suit.)"
[ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Emphasis added
[>
[> Thanks. The problem I have with this paragraph is that Heinlein doesn't
[> tell you what mechanism stops them, [....]
[
[No matter how many hired flunkies the gang boss had, there was no
[substitute for listening when told how to operate HIS OWN p-suit.
[
[More generally, the crime boss (and by extension his thugs) never
[learned to distinguish between people, whom they could order
[around, vs the laws of nature, which they couldn't. Without the
[active cooperation of the locals who had internalized that hard
[lesson, they were dead men. They just walked around a bit until
[they realized it. That's the "mechanism".
Actually, I kinda got the idea that someone didn't want the boss causing
problems, so they set something and the boss didn't know anything was wrong.
The rest of them were pretty clearly the result of outside forces.
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
===============================================================
Keith Wood
nri...@us.oracle.com (Anne B. "Nonie" Rider) wrote:
[I wrote:
[
[>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
[>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
[>heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on? Those of us who break
[>any of those "norms" already know about mob thought and
[>mob violence, and by and large we don't want more of it.
[rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) responded:
[
[> Making assumptions about people over the net is a good way to look foolish.
[> As it happens I know people who are strongly attracted to Heinlein's 'armed
[> society' who are all of those things above and in various combinations.
[I have only met a few exceptions to the list above, myself, and
[they were all either young women who had not yet encountered violence,
[or sullen (physically) crippled men who romanticize masculinity.
[I therefore wanted to know whether this was representative, or whether
[other folks had different experience.
Well, my wife is not white, she's diminutive and a severe asthmatic, and she
shoots in the high 90's with the .45 she carries just about everywhere she
goes.
She is alive today because her mother had an "assault weapon" to drive off a
thug with a tire iron.
You might also check out the American Women's Self-Defense Association (I don't
know the URL, but WebCrawler can find it for you).
What does religious or sexual preference have to do with it?
tan...@winternet.com
>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
>heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on? Those of us who break
>any of those "norms" already know about mob thought and
>mob violence, and by and large we don't want more of it.
[snip]
>I have only met a few exceptions to the list above, myself, and
>they were all either young women who had not yet encountered violence,
>or sullen (physically) crippled men who romanticize masculinity.
>I therefore wanted to know whether this was representative, or whether
>other folks had different experience.
>
>Aside from the Dianic neo-pagans, do you find other patterns
>among the folks you know who support the idea?
>
>--Nonie
Yes.. women who HAVE been victims of violence and want to make sure it
never happens to them again. This is based on the experience of a friend
of mine. He's a firearms trainer and offers a preparatory course for the
concealed weapons carry permit test (Minnesota). These women say that
they're tired of being afraid, and refuse to let the threat of violence
dictate their actions.
On the other hand....
Historically, the "armed society is a polite society" theory doesn't hold
up. Switzerland isn't an "armed" society in the sense that everyone is
packing. The weapons are locked up at home, and unauthorized display/use
(of any kind) is heavily sanctioned. Israel is looser, but they've been
on a continual war footing. This makes a big physological difference, but
has its own costs.
Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people. They also tend to look
like Northern Ireland, the West Bank, various South American cities, Bosnia etc.
Why? The thugs carry guns ALL the time, and use them regularly. The rest of the
people either don't carry at all (for a variety of reasons), or carry when they
think it's appropriate.
Some more points. In WWII, it was estimated that 25% of the soldiers NEVER shot
to kill. This percentage held up in Korea and Vietnam. Police officers have
the same problem. Add to this the fact that civilians don't have the emotional
permissions to kill that soldiers/police officers do. This means that most
people are never going to be able to USE their guns to good effect, even if
they need to. Sudden, unexpected violence makes most people freeze/mis-react,
and it takes regular training to prevent it (assuming you fall into the group
that can be trained at all).
I want to be clear here that I am not speaking of a gun stored at home for use
in the event of an intruder. The intruder gives you more time to prepare yourself
for the possibility of shooting. Homeowners (the smart ones) also use shotguns
and number 5-6 shot (so they don't penetrate a wall and hit their own families).
In addition, most societies (including the "everyone carries" brands) have more
built-in permissions for lethal violence in defense of home/family than they do
for street-corner gunfights. Even so, there is a substantial chance the homeowner
will mess up.
-------------------------------------------
Brian Bailey - Executioner DM
tan...@winternet.com
"What fools these mortals be!"
The unlived life is not worth examining....
David E Romm
> The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
> observed, is a great equalizer.
Tell it to the natives.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Winning isn't everything, but losing sucks." -- Soap
Douglas H. Borsom
> In article <4cvq5s$a...@blackice.winternet.com>, <tan...@winternet.com>
wrote:
> >Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
> >1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
>
> 3 murders per day in a town of 4000 people?
>
> 1095 murders per year?
>
> The entire population murdered in 3.6 years?
>
> What is wrong with this picture?
Maybe the citizens of Tombstone shared with several of Heinlein's
characters an enthusiam for the practice, "Kill a man, love a woman."
(No. I don't think so, either.)
-doug
Patrick Cox
: In article <4cvq5s$a...@blackice.winternet.com>, <tan...@winternet.com> wrote:
: >Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
: >1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
: 3 murders per day in a town of 4000 people?
: 1095 murders per year?
: The entire population murdered in 3.6 years?
: What is wrong with this picture?
Good point. In fact, real research largely debunks
the myth of the violent West. A great paper, published
in several economic journals, call Anarcho-capitalism
and the Not-so-wild-wild-west by P.J. Hill and Terry
Anderson, makes the very persuaisive case, based
on newspaper records from before and after the
institution of Territorial governments, that the Old
West was a far safer place than the country is today --
especially for women. It's funny how Hollywood has
so much say in our perceptions of the past.
Patrick
--
pc...@netcom.com
tan...@winternet.com
>In article <4cvq5s$a...@blackice.winternet.com>, <tan...@winternet.com> wrote:
>>Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
>>1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
>
>3 murders per day in a town of 4000 people?
>
>1095 murders per year?
>
>The entire population murdered in 3.6 years?
>
>What is wrong with this picture?
>
>Mike Van Pelt Republican mayor in Chicago?
>m...@netcom.com The voters would turn over in their graves.
>KE6BVH -- Marty Helgesen
You're quite correct - it was 3 murders per month on average. This is what
happens when you're up late and trust your (fading) memory instead of checking
references (having just watched "Tombstone" doesn't help). Interesting note:
Tombstone's "Boot Hill" (the first to be called by that name, supposedly) opened
in 1878, and closed in 1884 when it ran out of room. It contains 250 known graves
and 40 unmarked ones. My personal favorites for markers:
Red River Tom - shot by Ormsby
Bronco Charlie - shot by Ormsby
Ormsby - shot!
Mike Van Pelt
Timothy A. McDaniel
Robert Neinast <r...@cbran.cb.att.com> wrote:
>The men who murdered Virginia's original twenty-six cemetary occupants
>were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented
>trial by jury ...
>In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a
>jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were
>called to try
Don't blame Alfred the Great, if indeed he invented the jury, or even
later medieval kings.
Henry II of England, who did very much to expand and establish the
jury firmly in civil and criminal cases, did not have such an intent.
According to Glanvill's treatice, for example, the "grand assize" had
the opposite implementation. They selected "a jury of twelve
law-worthy knights of the neighborhood 'who best knew the truth of the
matter'. The twelve were then sent to 'view' the disputed property,
and returned to court at a later date ... Doubtless they conferred
together at 'the view' and consulted neighbors, for although they were
required to base their decision on what they personally had seen or
heard, or had been told by their fathers, there was nothing to prevent
them refresing their memories. The verdict of such a jury was,
indeed, more like that of a public inquiry than the opinion of a
modern jury formed from the answers of witnesses cross-examined in
court.". (p. 353, _Henry II_, W. L. Warren, Univ. of Calif. Press,
1973, ISBN 0-520-03494-5.)
Similarly, juries "of presentment" testified as to what crimes had
been committed in the area -- a proto-grand jury (p. 354). In a
criminal case, the judge asked the jurors whether Roger was a serf of
Richard, and not the coroner or the "whole shire court" who answered a
later question -- so the jurors had the knowledge of Roger's status.
--
Tim McDaniel
Reply-To: tm...@crl.com
(mcda...@dfw.net is the backup.)
Never use mcda...@mcdaniel.dallas.tx.us.
Timothy A. McDaniel
Rich Rostrom <R-Ro...@bgu.edu> wrote:
>The first use of the insanity defense was in Britain around 1845.
That's not at all what I've heard. I was at a talk in Dallas last
year: a professor of medieval history gave a talk on medieval British
insanity. I can get her name if anyone wants to follow up with her
and get her sources.
She stated that medieval people were aware of insanity and somewhat
forgiving of it. According to her, "frenzy" (temporary insanity) was
a known defence in criminal cases and sometimes was accepted. She
mentioned a royal [government] letter to a town asking why they had
imprisoned a man for a long time. The reply was that he was insane.
A few years previously, he had become notably erratic. One day, he
tried to throw himself into a lake, and was barely prevented. He then
went home and murdered his wife and children, and was caught just
before attempting another suicide. He was not hanged, as he was
clearly out of his wits at the time. He was generally calm, but he
was kept imprisoned because he still had occasional violent fits.
So, yes, my evidence is hearsay, but I think the source at least was
reliable, so please keep an open mind on the subject.
Rick Cook
>In article <4cvq5s$a...@blackice.winternet.com>, <tan...@winternet.com>
>wrote:
>>Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the
>late
>>1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
>
>3 murders per day in a town of 4000 people?
>
>1095 murders per year?
>
>The entire population murdered in 3.6 years?
>
>What is wrong with this picture?
>
same. Certainly it wasn't true for Tucson in the period (cf George Hand's
saloon dairy, 1875-1878, publised as "Whiskey, Six-Guns and Red-Light
Ladies"), nor was it true in Prescott.
Tombstone may have reached that level of violence at some point but it
didn't sustain it for very long.
--RC
Graydon
[guns as equalizers]
: > > Tell it to the natives.
: > They found it so. But they couldn't overcome the US Army's real advantages
: > - logistics (soldiers didn't have to worry about their next meal),
: > manpower (always more recruits), and buffalo hunters (who destroyed the
: > Plains indians economic base in a decade).
: So guns weren't a very good equalizer, eh?
"The Word came down to Satan, who raged and roared alone,
Amid the shouting of the peoples by the cannon overthrown;"
Consideration as a social equalizer _within_ a society is a very different
evaluation from that of military effectiveness, evaluated in the context
of an nomadic, near-neolithic culture faced with the prospect of conquest
by an industrial one with several times its population.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Ken Arromdee
>Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
>1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
This rate, if true, would cause the town to me completely depopulated in under
4 years.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Any creature who would disguise itself as a bone, obviously has no sense of
fair play!" -- Superboy Annual #1
David E Romm
robe...@halcyon.com (Robert A. Woodward) wrote:
> In article <romm-10019...@ppp-66-151.dialup.winternet.com>,
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>
> > In article <4cvtrt$c...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>, ala...@earthlink.net
> > (Cecil Rose) wrote:
> >
> > > The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
> > > observed, is a great equalizer.
> >
> > Tell it to the natives.
>
> They found it so. But they couldn't overcome the US Army's real advantages
> - logistics (soldiers didn't have to worry about their next meal),
> manpower (always more recruits), and buffalo hunters (who destroyed the
> Plains indians economic base in a decade).
So guns weren't a very good equalizer, eh?
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"I think the world is run by 'C' students."
-- Al McGuire
Wayne Johnson
it gets silly....
rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
>>Wayne, on Beyond This Horizon's structure:
>> This was almost a separate book, and
>>raised many issues about the society RAH created there - and you made
>>good points, with which I agree. Very perceptive - so why this
>>"whatcha mean, Wayne" nonsense now?
>Because quite frankly I don't think a reading of the book will support your
>contentions. Would you like to try with appropiate quotes and page numbers?
>You can start with your claims about the effects of natural selection in
>this society.
I see that I'll have to post this section for you, since only
Heinlein's words have weight...along with yours. Coming this weekend;
my Dad ripped off my copy, and I'll have to go visit and rassle the
old devil to get it back. Wish me luck. He's a tough bird.
The point is, Heinlein posited that this culture was the _result_ of
a violent vetting period - not a continuation of the same vetting. Of
course I realize that the current culture was on a heavy duty program
of genetic engineering - and since you call the gassing of the good
_and_ bad guys during the apocalyptic gunfight a sign of mercy, would
you care to recall that the primary reason for this method was the
extremely valuable genetic materials of Felix and Phyllis?
The last thing the Planners wanted to do was get these two killed.
No one gave a hoot for the revolutionaries. In fact, when Felix
awoke, with a splitting headache, it was mentioned that unless
treatment was rendered right away, the "sleep gas" was fatal; and no
particular care was taken, except for the defenders of the
installation. So much for the merciful society you describe.
>>You noted that the action, including the great shoot-out, may have
>>been just fodder for the action fans, with which I agree - so why are
>>you playing the wide-eyed innocent, wondering where all this mass
>>murder by wolves is supposed to take place?
>Because very simply it's not there. Go look for it.
Again, it doesn't have to be. Are you just being disingenuous (sp, I
choked spelling that one) or are you saying that a society where
gunfights in restaurants are acceptable has no shock value? By the
way, the parallel with wolves is Heinlein's simile, not mine - wolves
can be violent, but are not wantonly murderous. He did not call them
rabid Tasmanian devils.
>There is an attempted rebellion which is put down easily and which we see
>from the standpoint of a few people holed up defending a critical place.
>That's the big battle scene, remember.
>Now, do you remember how the Monitors ended the battle? Do you remember the
>wholesale slaughter of the revolutionaries?
See above; the only survivors were the good guys. When Felix asked
about their fate, it was dismissed with a shrug.
>If you do your memory's playing tricks on you because no such thing
>happened. Instead the monitors gassed everyone with sleep gas to put them
>to sleep. Real bloodthirsty pack of wolves you got there.
Yeah. I know. No due process, either, was there?
>(For that matter, just for grins, count the number of times and the context
>in which the word 'wolves' occurs in the book.)
Once. In Heinlein's explanation of the genesis of the society; it
gave the passage impact. Maybe you missed it?
>>Heinlein wasn't writing The Destroyer #47; he clearly stated that
>>offstage events, as paraphrased below, created this society.
>Can you support this? If you re-read the section you're referring to, I
>think you'll see it doesn't say what you think it does.
What do you think it says? I'm willing to bet you just re-read it.
What's your interpretation?
>> The single illustration of the matter of fact calling out of Mordan in the
>>restaurant is graphic enough to prove the point that routine killings
>>in public didn't faze diners enough to break off from dinner.
>Excuse me, but Mordan isn't the one who is called out. It is also clear
>from what is said there and elsewhere that this is unusual. Generally duels
>are arranged in the Regency fashion with seconds calling on each other,
>etc.
I stand corrected. And it's true, and moot, that civilized protocols
precede the fighting. The determination of the need for satisfaction
was always subjective - not subject to "control" or any specified
code.
>> That is a chilling scene. I guess you want every other character to say,
>>"Draw, podnuh," or otherwise, this book is about a nation of sheep.
>What I want is support for your contentions. So far I've seen pity little.
>In fact I'd say every one of the statements I listed is either wholly or
>partially wrong.
Take off that powdered wig; it's much too small for your head.
This is a general discussion, not a trial, and neither you nor I is
any sort of final arbiter of Heinlein's mind. (I used to be, but
Barry DeCiccio kept klopping my head with my crown, so I gave it up.)
Furthermore, you have made more errors in fact than I - the fate of
the revolutionaries is one glaring point - so before the Pope starts
feeling competition for infallability, I should hasten to reassure
him, eh?
Besides, Ms. Leibovitz is the only one in this group who is always
right. (place evil grin here)
>>Your suggestion implies that you're a better telepath than Felix's
>>kid, which I doubt.
>Why? Because I read the book more carefully than you apparently did?
"Even the Devil quotes Scripture". Does that powdered wig just hide
your horns, or what? So far, you caught me in one minor error; keep
this up, and I'll start keeping score of your gaffes, which are
stacking up fast...
1. Heinlein never called his society was one of wolves.
2. The violence of the culture was due sheerly to ennui, in spite of
the fact that this culture had been preceded by several world wars.
3. The sleep gas was merciful to the revolutionaries, even though they
all died.
4. This culture was not violent. (I like this one; Felix wings a man
in a restaurant, and people go on eating; Monroe-Alpha takes off to
kill a girl - Prominant Mathmetician As Executioner - and sees no
problem with it; you have to carry a sign (the Peace Brassard) that
you don't pack a weapon, or be gunned down in a dispute for being slow
on the draw; and this is not a violent culture. Hooo, boy. Care to
support any of these, really?
>>Support what contentions? It's straight out of the book.
>Wrong. You think they are straight out of the book. They are in general not.
>For example your statements about natural selection are utter nonsense
>because NATURAL SELECTION DOESN"T WORK IN THIS SOCIETY. You may recall one
>of the major features of BTH is a form of genetic engineering. None of
>those people, except the control naturals, are examples of natural
>selection of anything.
Again, cite coming, but just how did this society get started down
this path? Sheer ennui? Not according to RAH. The genetic selection
came afterward. Centuries of violence forged this culture.
>> You read
>>it. I have, too, probably too many times to count. Look it up; it's
>>near the scene where the poor devil comes out of the time capsule, and
>>reintroduces football to the society - and darn near gets killed, by
>>the highly aggressive modern men.
>If you recall those 'highly aggressive' modern men go to considerable
>lengths to keep from killing the poor devil. Which includes coming up with
>a highly unusual (for them) contest to prevent a gun duel with the
>inevitable result.
Of course. It's ironic how they had to readjust basic cultural mores
- and instincts - just to play a rough game. And as I recall, our
erstwhile Ivy Leaguer wore several broken bones, as did several other
contestants - to whom the term "unnecessary roughness" was a
contradiction in terms, no doubt..
>>Remember now? If you still need proof, I'll dig up my copy and post
>>the passage, word for word, though what is listed above is fairly
>>close.
>Perhaps you'd better re-read it, including the part about how the matter
>was eventually settled.
Home boy moved into promotion, as I recall, as his bones healed.
>In fact perhaps you'd better re-read _all_ of it.
Gotta go whip Dad, first - I think it's out of print. Though I'll
probably wind up like our Ivy Leaguer....that old dude has half my
collection, and growls when I mumble about getting them back.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Jeffrey Robertson
>[>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
>[>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
>[>heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on?
>
Everything, if your goal is to cloud the issues. But please, can
we take the gun control threads somewhere else? Hmmm? Pleeeeeeze?
--
-------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------
Jeffrey Robertson | je...@bnr.ca | BNR, Ottawa
"I speak for myself, not BNR" - Me +----------------+ (Meriline)
"Verbing weirds language" - Calvin OC-48 FiberWorld
Timothy Morris
>Known many thugs? I met a lot of them as a newspaper reporter on the police
>and court beats
And I've met a lot of them as an assistant prosecutor, and you're right.
These are not guy who are all that conected with the world as most of us
know it. But, heck, Rick, what do we know?
Graydon
: In article <KCC9wwUN...@bctv.com>, Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.com> wrote:
: >[>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
: >[>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
: >[>heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on?
: >
: >What does religious or sexual preference have to do with it?
: Everything, if your goal is to cloud the issues. But please, can
: we take the gun control threads somewhere else? Hmmm? Pleeeeeeze?
*snrk*
I can certainly sympathize with that aim. I would, however, like to
point out that I'm certainly not Christian, and I still think that an
armed society is a polite society.
Since I also think 'armed' is a state of mind, and about not being, as a
function of response to stressful circumstance, personally hapless, and
only very peripherally about possessing weapons (which are tools, and you
can give the best chisels in the world to anyone you like; they won't cut
clean, tight dovetail joints until they do the work to learn how, in brain
and bone and sinew).
I'd be very curious as to what some of the contributors to this discussion
think 'armed' means; I suspect that many are using it in the 'possession
of weapons' sense, which is correct but rather trivial in a social sense.
Wayne Johnson
Shucks, I met a lot of them growing up in the ghetto, and you're
right; they aren't connected to the world the rest of us are in.
What amazes me is how many places in the world they obtain real power.
As in political power. Heinlein's Luna always seemed like a ripe
place for such thuggism to start; it was amazing how little tolerance
for thuggery existed in that story. Was the same true for the early
history of Australia?
What I mean is, would a society that was made up of people who lived
intimately with thugs deal with them more effectively? Australia was
a dumping ground for the English - must have been plenty of bad eggs,
but they built a smooth culture, quickly.
Anyone know?
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Seth Breidbart
>>>Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
>>>1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
>
>>1095 murders per year?
>>The entire population murdered in 3.6 years?
>>What is wrong with this picture?
>
>losses. This apparent impossibility is possible because they were filled up
>runningly.
>
>So Tombstone _could_ sustain that kind of losses if immigration was large
>enough to compensate.
Would _you_ move to a town like that? The people who joined those
units in WWII didn't have much choice in the matter.
Anyway, the figure is wrong.
Seth
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>In article <4cvq5s$a...@blackice.winternet.com>, <tan...@winternet.com> wrote:
>>Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
>>1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
>3 murders per day in a town of 4000 people?
>1095 murders per year?
>The entire population murdered in 3.6 years?
>What is wrong with this picture?
Not _necessarily_ anything. There were units in WWII that had several 100%
losses. This apparent impossibility is possible because they were filled up
runningly.
So Tombstone _could_ sustain that kind of losses if immigration was large
enough to compensate.
It does sound like an awful large number, though. Any documentation?
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
'There was a man,' remarked Captain Eliot, 'who was sentenced
to death for stealing a horse from a common. He said to the judge,
that he thought it hard to be hanged for stealing a horse from a
common and the judge answered, "You are not to be hanged for
stealing a horse from a common, but that others may not steal
horses from commons." '
'And do you find,' asked Stephen, 'that in fact horses are not
daily stolen from commons? You do not!'
--- "The Mauritius Command" by Patrick O'Brian
paulr
are not armed societites. They are, or were, armed states. Big difference.
Compare that quote to Switzerland or Australia.
-Paul
Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
: Seth Breidbart (se...@panix.com) wrote:
: : "An armed society is a polite society." There are lots of people in
: : various parts of Eastern Europe who might not be so quick to agree.
: Yes, this theory has proved itself in Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan,
: Bosnia, Rwanda, Lebanon, and so many other places, including US inner
: cities. But they probably haven't had time to "settle out."
: And they probably haven't read Heinlein enough. That's their problem.
: --
: -- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
: Copyright 1995 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Anne B. Nonie Rider
> But please, can we take the gun control threads somewhere else?
Yeah, we seem to have diverged into two threads here:
1. "Should the people have a greater right to bear arms? Would
it improve society?" That may be an interesting thread to
some, folks, but it belongs in a different newsgroup.
2. "Would Heinlein's vision of an society with weapons and
a code duello, but no laws, work in real life?"
That's the thread I thought we were discussing here.
However, I do suspect we've covered the topics of
interest to general sf fandom. Is there a group
rec.arts.sf.written.heinlein or some such? (I don't
have the newsgroup list in front of me.)
So, how 'bout we take our footballs off the tennis court?
--Nonie
Graydon
: What I mean is, would a society that was made up of people who lived
: intimately with thugs deal with them more effectively? Australia was
: a dumping ground for the English - must have been plenty of bad eggs,
: but they built a smooth culture, quickly.
The English were transporting a _lot_ of political dissidents; I've never
seen figures, but I suspect that the proportion of thugs was fairly
small.
The other thing to consider is that habitual thugs require an estabilished
infrastructure to prey upon; if, as in the case of a new colony, that
infrastructure isn't present, they don't do as well. Not only do they
have less stuff available to steal, the non-thugs aren't as likely to
regard what they do take as sufficently surplus to not start shooting.
MSpeller PKincaid
Gesualdo (16/17th century Italian composer?) was acquitted of murdering
his wife and her lover on the grounds that he was a composer and was by
definition mad.
Maureen Kincaid Speller
mks...@cix.compulink.co.uk
[whose sigfile obviously went on holiday for Christmas, I hate computers]
Anne B. Nonie Rider
>[>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
>[>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
>[>heterosexual, able-bodied, and so on?
Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.com> responded:
> What does religious or sexual preference have to do with it?
Well, I don't know if you only saw my post in quoted bits or
didn't understand the rest, but in context I hope I made it
clear that the folks I know who don't fit the above profile
have experienced enough mob hostility that most of them don't
like the idea of a LAWLESS armed society.
Anti-Semitic, anti-pagan, and anti-gay groups, like other
hate groups, tend towards mob violence, not just one-against-one
duels. Therefore, members of groups who are regular targets of
hate crimes are unlikely to support a model of society that
provides them no legal protection against such crimes.
Does that answer your question?
--Nonie
Gary Farber
: What amazes me is how many places in the world they obtain real power.
: As in political power. Heinlein's Luna always seemed like a ripe
: place for such thuggism to start; it was amazing how little tolerance
: for thuggery existed in that story. Was the same true for the early
: history of Australia?
: What I mean is, would a society that was made up of people who lived
: intimately with thugs deal with them more effectively? Australia was
: a dumping ground for the English - must have been plenty of bad eggs,
: but they built a smooth culture, quickly.
: Anyone know?
This is as much a matter for subjective evaluation as anything without
clear criteria established, but for my reading of Australian history, I
would say "no." :-) Try Robert Hughes' THE FATAL SHORE, a superb
history of the early days of Australia. It was a very unsmooth culture,
extremely divided, and did not settle out at all quickly as I would use
those terms. Made for a good book, though. :-)
I'm particularly fond of the story of the guy trying to escape by
disguising himself as a kangaroo. He would have made it save that he
forgot that they shot kangaroos. Oops.
Note that I've set followups to alt.fan.heinlein only.
--
-- Gary Farber Middlemiss gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 for DUFF Brooklyn, NY, USA
Keith Wood
[Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
[>In article <4cnu9d$6...@news2.delphi.com>, Rick Cook <rc...@BIX.com> wrote:
[>>
[>>For example around here there's a strong correlation between that attitude
[>>and the Dianiac neo-pagans, many of whom are lesbians.
[>
[>'Here' being La-La Land, right? No wonder.
[>--
[> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
[
[Nope, the right-wing wilds of Arizona.
Sorry, Rick, but from up here in Cottonwood, Phoenix doesn't look all that
wild. ;)
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
===============================================================
Stevens R. Miller
>Stevens R. Miller wrote:
>>When he killed Hamilton, it was Burr who had issued the challenge, and
>>Hamilton who had fired his own gun into the air. Burr then murdered
>>Hamilton and had to cross state lines to avoid prosecution.
>>
>Perhaps, but irrelevant to the poster's point. If Burr was not a Founder,
>Hamilton most definitely was.
You are correct. And, therefore, my observations are utterly relevant because
the poster's point relied on the behavior of Burr, not Hamilton.
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Lawrence Watt-Evans
says...
>What amazes me is how many places in the world they obtain real power.
>As in political power. Heinlein's Luna always seemed like a ripe
>place for such thuggism to start; it was amazing how little tolerance
>for thuggery existed in that story. Was the same true for the early
>history of Australia?
>
>What I mean is, would a society that was made up of people who lived
>intimately with thugs deal with them more effectively? Australia was
>a dumping ground for the English - must have been plenty of bad eggs,
>but they built a smooth culture, quickly.
They built a very peculiar culture, if the Aussies reading this will forgive
me for saying so. And Australia had an appalling death rate in its early
years.
Actually, if I had to point to the historical culture that most nearly
resembled Heinlein's Luna, it would be colonial Australia -- but it's not
very close.
--
For information on Lawrence Watt-Evans, finger -l lawr...@clark.net
or see The Misenchanted Page at http://www.greyware.com/authors/LWE/
The Horror Writers Association Page is at http://www.horror.org/HWA/
Cecil Rose
>In article <4cvtrt$c...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>, ala...@earthlink.net
>(Cecil Rose) wrote:
>> The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
>> observed, is a great equalizer.
>Tell it to the natives.
One they had gunsm they were much more equal.
Cecil Rose
ala...@earthlink.net
Carson, California
David MacLean
Lucy Sussex <lsu...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>Patrick Cox wrote:
>
>> I should have known better than to get involved in this.
>> Your statements assume much, including a.) I have never
>> visited any of these countries, b.) your blanket statements
>> will mean something to me. Both are wrong. But, if you
>> want more evidence that the presense of guns does not lead
>> to problems, visit Switzerland or Isreal. Both have
>> enormous numbers of guns and, excepting political acts
>> in Isreal, lower crime rates than almost all countries
>> that prohibit citizen ownership of guns.
>
>The basic issue is that guns were originally designed for killing people
>and they still are. If you think killing people is okay then you're
>welcome to construct all of the rationalisations you like to sustain that
>viewpoint. You are simply bound to disagree with a lot of people.
>
>We could argue endlessly about it and neither would convince the other.
>You can have a parting "shot" if you like but I won't bother replying.
>
>Have a nice, safe life.
Did you or did you not support the Gulf War? If you have supported
any armed conflict, then you have blown the bottom right out of
your "killing is bad" argument, have you not?
Do you support capital punishment in any form? Say for treason, if not
murder. If you do, then you admit that there are some circumstances under
which killing another human being is, if not laudable, at least justified.
Which just boils down to Professor Bernardo de la Paz's basic question:
what is it moral for a group to do that it is immoral for any group member
to do?
--
***************************************************************************
David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
***************************************************************************
David MacLean
Holger....@ira.uka.de (Holger Hellmuth) wrote:
>can...@nic.com (Kevin Martin) writes:
>
>>In article <4cf3lm$k...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
>>Holger....@ira.uka.de (Holger Hellmuth) spoke for Boskone:
>>> > "(None lasted two weeks. Gangster boss didn't make it to barracks;
>>> >hadn't listened when told how to wear a p-suit.)"
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Emphasis added
>>>
>>> Thanks. The problem I have with this paragraph is that Heinlein doesn't
>>> tell you what mechanism stops them, [....]
>
>>No matter how many hired flunkies the gang boss had, there was no
>>substitute for listening when told how to operate HIS OWN p-suit.
>
>>More generally, the crime boss (and by extension his thugs) never
>>learned to distinguish between people, whom they could order
>>around, vs the laws of nature, which they couldn't. Without the
>
>With 'them' I meant gangs in general, not this specific gang (sorry,
>could have made myself clearer). It is no mystery how the gangster
>boss was stopped (hey, I'm not that dump :-). But the *general* principle
>of how organised crime is prevented from blooming on the moon is
>not revealed by Heinlein (as he has a right to do as author).
>Like a good magician he turned the eyes of the reader away from
>the holes in the story.
Your reply generates two difficulties in the context of Heinlein's Luna
society. The first is semantic, since crime is defined as a violation
of law, and if there are no laws, there is no crime per se, merely violations
of some individual's personal code of conduct.
Secondly, "organized crime" is a reaction to those things that many people
want, but society makes illegal. Organized crime has always thrived on
the things that well meaning people want abolished - gambling, prostitution,
and drugs for the most part. For "organized crime" to have any impetus
at all, there must either be profit in it (which their wouldn't be if
Joe Blow down the street can make the same profit as the crime king pins)
or a will to power. But will to power can only be satisfied by attaining
a position where it is quite likely that you will be obeyed. In Heinlein's
Luna society, such a position is unattainable, and not worth the risk.
David MacLean
nri...@us.oracle.com (Anne B. "Nonie" Rider) wrote:
>Too many people who think Heinlein's fictional politics are
>workable are ignoring cases with more than two people.
>
>Those who want to do armed violence to others have a strong
>tendency to gather in groups. The Klan, the Crips and Bloods,
>the redneck farmers who don't want any of Your Kind around
>here, the fraternity brothers out for a good night's rape.
>
>Meanwhile, the average non-violent citizen would like to spend
>his time and effort on other things than staying in groups to
>fight off the above.
>
>I prefer a political system that tries to protect single
>individuals, whether armed or not, from groups that regularly
>seek out others to victimize.
>
>Of folks saying that Heinlein's polite armed society should
>work, are there any of you who AREN'T white, male, Christian,
>any of those "norms" already know about mob thought and
>mob violence, and by and large we don't want more of it.
>
I, for one, am not Christian, am not completely white, and when it comes
right down to it, I'm not as able-bodied as I would like to be.
And I too would prefer a politcal system that tries to protect single
individuals, whether armed or not, from groups that regularly seek
out others to victimize. However, these "groups" may well be the
very people we invest our trust in to protects us from other groups.
You may see it differently, but on an ongoing basis, people shot by
cops far outnumber those shot by Mafia hitman. When it comes right down
to it, to an outsider, there is very little to differentiate a police
force from any other gang. It may be our hope that the police will
be different, but far too often that hope is dashed on the shores of
reality.
What Heinlein is positing in TMiaHM is a society in which the responsibility
for the individuals safety and well being rests squarely on the individual,
and not passed off to other people.
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <DOnwmCI$9o90...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>,
>Phil Culmer <her...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> wrote:
>>What Heinlein seems to be positing here, IMO, is that if ^everyone^
>>routinely carried a gun, then you are backing your manners with your life.
>>The problem in the above mentioned areas is, IMHO, that the proprtion of
>>people carrying guns is low enough that a gun gives an advantage. If all or
>>most people carried, say, a side arm, then they would lose the advantage
>>that they give someone who wishes to impose their will.
>
>Ignore the gun factor for a moment. Just about everyone--certainly as many
>people as would be armed with guns in the Heinlein society--is armed with two
>usable fists. By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of
>people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
>
>Lynch mobs seem to work even though their victims routinely carry fists.
This is a straw man argument, Ken, since fisticuffs are seldom fatal, and
the strong rule by wont of their strength. You cannot simply ignore the
gun factor, since the gun factor is the great equilizer.
Cecil Rose
>In article <4cvtrt$c...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>, ala...@earthlink.net
>(Cecil Rose) wrote:
>> arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>
>> >Ignore the gun factor for a moment. Just about everyone--certainly as many
>> >people as would be armed with guns in the Heinlein society--is armed with two
>> >usable fists. By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of
>> >people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
>>
>> You can't really ignore the gun factor, though. Considering only
>> fists, the imopetus would be for everyone to be polite to the biggest,
>> stongest, meanest guy around, and rude to the wimps.
>>
>> The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
>> observed, is a great equalizer.
>>
>until those predisposed to guns/violence start carrying Uzis. Then
>everyone will need an Uzi. Until someone shows up with a Bazooka... ad
>infinitum.
>The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
>every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
>Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
>experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
Actually, as long as everyone was rational, a world where every
country had nuclear weapons would be a *much* *more* *polite* world.
It's when an irrational madman gets one we have to worry.
BigEd11
>: Actually, as long as everyone was rational, a world where every
>: country had nuclear weapons would be a *much* *more* *polite* world.
>: It's when an irrational madman gets one we have to worry.<
If everyone were *rational*, then why would anyone *need* nuclear weapons?
The answer is, no one (or no country's leadership) is always totally
rational. Which is where this whole argument breaks down. There doesn't
appear to be any allowance for the fact that the most rational person
*sometimes* has a bad day. And that's where the trouble starts.
Ed Green
Barry DeCicco
cut down on the number of gang members. The survivors would be
the smartest ones - there is always a supply of stupid people
to be object lessons for the ones who are intelligent.
Barry
In article <15B9wwUN...@bctv.com>, kei...@bctv.com (Keith Wood) writes:
|> In article <y385w03M...@nic.com>, can...@nic.com (Kevin Martin) wrote:
|> [In article <4cf3lm$k...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
|> [Holger....@ira.uka.de (Holger Hellmuth) spoke for Boskone:
|> [> > "(None lasted two weeks. Gangster boss didn't make it to barracks;
|> [> >hadn't listened when told how to wear a p-suit.)"
|> [ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Emphasis added
|> [>
So - an outside gang leader was eliminated - by nature or by a local rival.
Doesn't mean that there weren't local gangs.
|> [> Thanks. The problem I have with this paragraph is that Heinlein doesn't
|> [> tell you what mechanism stops them, [....]
|> [
|> [No matter how many hired flunkies the gang boss had, there was no
|> [substitute for listening when told how to operate HIS OWN p-suit.
|> [
|> [More generally, the crime boss (and by extension his thugs) never
|> [learned to distinguish between people, whom they could order
|> [around, vs the laws of nature, which they couldn't. Without the
|> [active cooperation of the locals who had internalized that hard
|> [lesson, they were dead men. They just walked around a bit until
|> [they realized it. That's the "mechanism".
|>
I think that most of the people who have the brains to make it to control
of a gang will learn to survive. Even if 90% don't, that leaves a small
core of extremely competant leaders.
One of the important lessons of leadership is to know which things you
control, which you influence, and which things you have no power over.
Those who have to build/take over their positions either learn
that quickly, or die.
|> Actually, I kinda got the idea that someone didn't want the boss causing
|> problems, so they set something and the boss didn't know anything was wrong.
|> The rest of them were pretty clearly the result of outside forces.
|>
Which probably meant that whoever was in charge of the local gang
merely eliminated a rival for his position, i.e., a Lunie who wanted
power used his local knowledge to consolidate/increase/protect his power.
Barry
Rick Cook
>What I mean is, would a society that was made up of people who lived
>intimately with thugs deal with them more effectively? Australia was
>a dumping ground for the English - must have been plenty of bad eggs,
>but they built a smooth culture, quickly.
>
>
I don't know, but in general such societies don't have a lot of tolerance
for thuggery and tend to get rid of those who can't control their thuggish
tendencies pretty quickly.
Would things work the way Heinlein laid out in TMiaHM? I dunno, but I don't
find it wildly implausible.
--RC
Rick Cook
I cited the gassing in Beyond This Horizon as an example of not killing
people. I had forgotten the gas was lethal unless the antidote was quickly
administered. As Modran tells Hamilton Felix, the medics were probably too
busy to get to the bad guys.
Actually the error goes deeper than than. Modran explains the government's
policy of waiting until the conspirators strike as wanting to exterminate
all the conspirators at one swoop. Clearly the intent was to kill them all.
This doesn't change my reading of the book however.
Wayne Johnson wrote:
(I wrote)
>>Because quite frankly I don't think a reading of the book will support
>>your contentions. Would you like to try with appropiate quotes and page
>numbers? You can start with your claims about the effects of natural
selection in
>>this society.
>
>I see that I'll have to post this section for you, since only Heinlein's
words have >weight...along with yours.
Well, not exactly. The point I'm trying to make is that the book simply
doesn't say what some people seem to think it does. That's why I'm asking
you to reference some of your comments with page numbers. I think on
re-reading you'll find that a lot of them simply aren't supported.
> Coming this weekend;
>my Dad ripped off my copy, and I'll have to go visit and rassle the
>old devil to get it back. Wish me luck. He's a tough bird.
I've got a spare around here I'll be happy to send you -- if I can ever
find it, that is. I suspect that's as tough a proposition as bearding your
dad in his den. :-)
>
>The point is, Heinlein posited that this culture was the _result_ of
>a violent vetting period - not a continuation of the same vetting.
Again, that's not what the book says. The history, as laid out in Chapter 2
and 3, includes a war of extermination against the Great Khan's genetic
supermen, and the failed attempt to breed agressiveness out of the human
race. I presume it's the second that you're referring to. However please
note that the people of the Northwest Confederacy (the 'wolves') were not
enhanced for agression. It's merely that everyone else had the agressivness
removed. The 'wolves' were 'wolves' only by comparison. Nor, we are told,
was this a war of extermination.
So in this sense the 'wolves' are exactly like we are.
> Of course I realize that the current culture was on a heavy duty program
>of genetic engineering - and since you call the gassing of the good
>_and_ bad guys during the apocalyptic gunfight a sign of mercy, would
>you care to recall that the primary reason for this method was the
>extremely valuable genetic materials of Felix and Phyllis?
Well, no. If you recall the monitors used gas because they weren't sure all
of the 'their people' (Mordan's words) were out of the building.
As to the rest, I was wrong.
> The last thing the Planners wanted to do was get these two killed.
>No one gave a hoot for the revolutionaries. In fact, when Felix
>awoke, with a splitting headache, it was mentioned that unless
>treatment was rendered right away, the "sleep gas" was fatal; and no
>particular care was taken, except for the defenders of the
>installation. So much for the merciful society you describe.
And you still don't have proof of all this agressivness you keep talking about.
>>>You noted that the action, including the great shoot-out, may have
>>>been just fodder for the action fans, with which I agree - so why are
>>>you playing the wide-eyed innocent, wondering where all this mass
>>>murder by wolves is supposed to take place?
>
>>Because very simply it's not there. Go look for it.
>Again, it doesn't have to be.
So it's there even though it's not demonstrated? Interesting proposition.
Look, as a writer Heinlein knew that the best way to establish something is
to show it. If he had intended this society to be as brutal and
bloodthirsty as you claim, with the callous disregard for human life, he
would have shown us that in action. In fact he does not.
What he does show us is a highly mannered, foppish society modeled on 18th
Century English aristrocracy. He doesn't tell us people are bored or that
society is an elaborate game, he _shows_ us by a piling up of details. Just
as he shows us that people are bored.
(Again, notice the details, from the language to the lace on Modran's cuff
to Hamilton and Monroe's nail polish -- and on and on and on.)
He also shows us that dueling is a common custom, but that's only a small
part of the picture he's drawing. It is simply not as important to the book
or the society as the descriptions make out.
> Are you just being disingenuous (sp, I
>choked spelling that one) or are you saying that a society where
>gunfights in restaurants are acceptable has no shock value?
Obviously it does have shock value. Look at the reactions of the other
diners. However it also obviously happens. You can die for bad manners in
this society, just as you could in many other societies with similar
construction (mostly aristocracies). To claim this makes it a society of
wolves is just plain wrong.
> By the
>way, the parallel with wolves is Heinlein's simile, not mine - wolves
>can be violent, but are not wantonly murderous. He did not call them
>rabid Tasmanian devils.
Exactly. Nor are the wolves genetically wolves by our standards.
>
>>(For that matter, just for grins, count the number of times and the
>>context in which the word 'wolves' occurs in the book.)
>
>Once. In Heinlein's explanation of the genesis of the society; it
>gave the passage impact. Maybe you missed it?
I believe twice. And no I didn't miss it. Did you miss the part where the
difference between the sheep and the wolves was described? It was not that
the wolves had genetically enhances combativiness. It was that the sheep's
combativness had been genetically suppressed.
In other words in terms of aggression the 'wolves' were normal people, like us.
>>>Heinlein wasn't writing The Destroyer #47; he clearly stated that
>>>offstage events, as paraphrased below, created this society.
>
>>Can you support this? If you re-read the section you're referring to, I
>>think you'll see it doesn't say what you think it does.
>
>What do you think it says? I'm willing to bet you just re-read it.
>What's your interpretation?
See above. Heinlein is actually pretty explicit about this.
>>> The single illustration of the matter of fact calling out of Mordan in
>the
>>>restaurant is graphic enough to prove the point that routine killings
>>>in public didn't faze diners enough to break off from dinner.
>
>>Excuse me, but Mordan isn't the one who is called out. It is also clear
>>from what is said there and elsewhere that this is unusual. Generally
>>duels are arranged in the Regency fashion with seconds calling on each
>>other, etc.
>
>I stand corrected. And it's true, and moot, that civilized protocols
>precede the fighting.
Hardly moot for several reasons. First, it cuts down on random violence.
Also since an apology will almost always solve the matter you have ample
opportunity to avoid a duel unless you feel really strongly about the
matter. And if you don't like the system you can wear a brassard, as many
people do.
> The determination of the need for satisfaction
>was always subjective - not subject to "control" or any specified
>code.
Utterly untrue as it happens. What is the duty of a second in a duel ('your
friends' in Hamilton Felix' comment to Modran in Chapter 2)? Also, all
cultures I am aware of which had the custom of dueling also had very
definite checks on it, legal and otherwise.
[snip]
>>What I want is support for your contentions. So far I've seen pity little.
>>In fact I'd say every one of the statements I listed is either wholly or
>>partially wrong.
>
>Take off that powdered wig; it's much too small for your head.
Meaning what in this context? Someone made some contentions, you tried to
support them with a summary of 'facts' from the book -- most of which were
incorrect. So far you've failed pretty badly as far as I can see.
>This is a general discussion, not a trial, and neither you nor I is
>any sort of final arbiter of Heinlein's mind. (I used to be, but
>Barry DeCiccio kept klopping my head with my crown, so I gave it up.)
No, but we can refer to what Heinlein plainly says and how he says it. This
is neither an excercise in mind reading nor Higher Criticism. It's a simple
matter of what conclusions you can reasonably draw from reading the book.
>Furthermore, you have made more errors in fact than I
Wrong, as it happens.
> - the fate of
>the revolutionaries is one glaring point - so before the Pope starts
>feeling competition for infallability, I should hasten to reassure
>him, eh?
Instead why don't you try to support your contentions?
>Besides, Ms. Leibovitz is the only one in this group who is always
>right. (place evil grin here)
>>>Your suggestion implies that you're a better telepath than Felix's
>>>kid, which I doubt.
>
>>Why? Because I read the book more carefully than you apparently did?
>"Even the Devil quotes Scripture". Does that powdered wig just hide
>your horns, or what? So far, you caught me in one minor error; keep
>this up, and I'll start keeping score of your gaffes, which are
>stacking up fast.
Actually you've made considerably more than that. Your entire position is,
as far as I can see, simply wrong.
>1. Heinlein never called his society was one of wolves.
In fact he did not. Re-read the reference.
>2. The violence of the culture was due sheerly to ennui, in spite of
>the fact that this culture had been preceded by several world wars.
In fact that is the picture Heinlein paints for us. The 'several' world
wars consist of precisely two. The Northwest Confederation (the normal
people) against the rest of the world (fighting spirit suppressed by
genetic engineering) and the Great Khan's genetically engineered supermen.
Neither of those establishes your point.
(In story telling terms both those bits of history exist because they meet
the obvious objections to the society -- why not breed violence out and why
not breed monsters? Those are logical questions and Heinlein had to answer
them.)
Meanwhile Heinlein presents us with a society whose manners are strongly
representative of the 18th Century and spends a good deal of time
establishing a picture of a that society as a game bored people play.
>3. The sleep gas was merciful to the revolutionaries, even though they
>all died.
And again, I was wrong.
>4. This culture was not violent.
No such thing. This culture is not randomly murderous. You can get yourself
killed in a duel, but it takes some work.
> (I like this one; Felix wings a man in a restaurant, and people go on
eating;
Only after the other guy forces the issue. Note that Felix solves the
inital incident with an apology.
>Monroe-Alpha takes off to kill a girl - Prominant Mathmetician As
Executioner - >and sees no problem with it;
Monroe-Alpha is at that point a member of an illegal revolutionary
conspiracy and acting outside the norms of the society. Further, Heinlein
paints Monroe-Alpha as a dork. He is clearly not representative of the
society and in fact is a bit of an idiot.
> you have to carry a sign (the Peace Brassard) that you don't pack a weapon,
Wrong. A brassard means you're immune from challenge. An unbrassarded
person doesn't necessarily have to be carrying a gun.
> or be gunned down in a dispute for being slow on the draw;
Wrong. You'd have to accept the challenge to a duel first.
> and this is not a violent culture. Hooo, boy. Care to support any of
these, >really?
What you're saying is that because you can get killed in a duel this is a
violent culture.
This is true -- but you've got to work at it. We're shown again and again
people who prefer not to duel and will go to considerable lengths to avoid
it or to avoid killing someone. An apology will almost invariably settle
the matter.
This is hardly the mindlessly violent culture of 'wolves' that was
originally painted.
>>>Support what contentions? It's straight out of the book.
>>Wrong. You think they are straight out of the book. They are in general
>not.
>>For example your statements about natural selection are utter nonsense
>>because NATURAL SELECTION DOESN"T WORK IN THIS SOCIETY. You >>may recall
one of the major features of BTH is a form of genetic engineering. >>None
of those people, except the control naturals, are examples of natural
>>selection of anything.
>
>Again, cite coming, but just how did this society get started down
>this path?
It got started when the techniques for genetic selection were developed.
Please note that there is nothing to indicate that dueling (which is pretty
much your sole supporting fact) goes back nearly that far.
> Sheer ennui? Not according to RAH. The genetic selection
>came afterward.
Wrong. The genetic selection preceeded this society by hundreds of years.
In fact it goes back to the period after the atomic war of the 1970s.
> Centuries of violence forged this culture.
Wrong. Re-read it. There is no support for 'centuries of violence'. Instead
the implication is that there were two fairly short wars in those
centuries. Certainly only two wars are mentioned and there is no indication
that there are any others.
Two wars in several centuries is a much better record than we've got.
>>> You read
>>>it. I have, too, probably too many times to count. Look it up; it's
>>>near the scene where the poor devil comes out of the time capsule, and
>>>reintroduces football to the society - and darn near gets killed, by
>>>the highly aggressive modern men.
>
>>If you recall those 'highly aggressive' modern men go to considerable
>>lengths to keep from killing the poor devil. Which includes coming up with
>>a highly unusual (for them) contest to prevent a gun duel with the
>>inevitable result.
>
>Of course. It's ironic how they had to readjust basic cultural mores
>- and instincts - just to play a rough game. And as I recall, our
>erstwhile Ivy Leaguer wore several broken bones, as did several other
>contestants - to whom the term "unnecessary roughness" was a
>contradiction in terms, no doubt.
Not necessarily. Think of how well you'd fare as a down lineman against the
Dallas Cowboys. For that matter think what would happen to today's
professional football players if they tried to play with the rules and
protective equipment of the 1920s. (Spearing, clipping, the kinds of
tackles that were legal in the 20s, etc.) The injured list would be
awesome.
The would-be football players of this time are so fast and so strong (and
some of them will be so large, just as they are today) that an average
athlete of the 1920s would get hurt playing against them.
Again, note that there is absolutely no implication that Smith was unduly
roughed up. In fact the impression is exactly the opposite. Smith's broken
bones, it is implied, are the result of the fact that he isn't in the same
class physically as his players.
>>>Remember now? If you still need proof, I'll dig up my copy and post
>>>the passage, word for word, though what is listed above is fairly
>>>close.
>
>>Perhaps you'd better re-read it, including the part about how the matter
>>was eventually settled.
>
>Home boy moved into promotion, as I recall, as his bones healed.
Uh, I think you're confusing two things here. They settled the duel with a
boxing match -- which Smith predictably lost, but which didn't kill him.
(And that was the point, as is made clear.)
Again, notice that introducing a new sport to become wildly popular
reinforces the notion of a bored society starved for new sensations.
>>In fact perhaps you'd better re-read _all_ of it.
This still stands.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>2. "Would Heinlein's vision of an society with weapons and
> a code duello, but no laws, work in real life?"
> That's the thread I thought we were discussing here.
> However, I do suspect we've covered the topics of
> interest to general sf fandom. Is there a group
> rec.arts.sf.written.heinlein or some such? (I don't
> have the newsgroup list in front of me.)
>
portrays in Beyond This Horizon. Whether such a society would work in
practice is another issue as far as I'm concerned. I don't find it wildly
implausible and I think the business about armed, polite societies has some
validity -- but I'm not prepared to defend either exceptionally strongly.
--RC
Rick Cook
>clear that the folks I know who don't fit the above profile
>have experienced enough mob hostility that most of them don't
>like the idea of a LAWLESS armed society.
>
>Anti-Semitic, anti-pagan, and anti-gay groups, like other
>hate groups, tend towards mob violence, not just one-against-one
>duels. Therefore, members of groups who are regular targets of
>hate crimes are unlikely to support a model of society that
>provides them no legal protection against such crimes.
>
>Does that answer your question?
>
law. In practice most 'lawless' societies (ie, without formal law) are
highly law-abiding.
And mob violence is remarkably ineffective unless the objects are either
disarmed or unwilling to use the arms they have.
There are some very funny stories from the 30s through the 50s of what
happened when the Klan decided to transfer their attentions from Blacks to
Indians. It was an abortive experiment which rapidly became unpopular in
Klan circles.
--RC
David MacLean
ma...@nwlink.com (Mark Eaton) wrote:
>In article <4cvtrt$c...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>, ala...@earthlink.net
>(Cecil Rose) wrote:
>
>> arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>
>> >Ignore the gun factor for a moment. Just about everyone--certainly as many
>> >people as would be armed with guns in the Heinlein society--is armed with two
>> >usable fists. By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of
>> >people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
>>
>> You can't really ignore the gun factor, though. Considering only
>> fists, the imopetus would be for everyone to be polite to the biggest,
>> stongest, meanest guy around, and rude to the wimps.
>>
>> The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
>> observed, is a great equalizer.
>>
>
>until those predisposed to guns/violence start carrying Uzis. Then
>everyone will need an Uzi. Until someone shows up with a Bazooka... ad
>infinitum.
>
>The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
>every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
>Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
>experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
>
But at least they had mouths to leave a bad taste in. The concept of
Mutually Assured Destruction, distasteful as that was, was infinitely
better than the alternative, which was nuclear armageddon.
Barry DeCicco
What the original person was tyring to say (IMO) was that most of
the people who casually talk about vigilanteism/mob violence
being a socially useful thing are those who assume that they will
not be the target - that, if a mob comes and kills them, they would
be punished. Traditionally, racial/ethinic/religious/sexual 'minorities'
and fringe groups have been the targets of mob violence (both large and
small scale), and attacks on them have been written off as 'they deserved it'.
Barry
Ken Arromdee
>You may see it differently, but on an ongoing basis, people shot by
>cops far outnumber those shot by Mafia hitman.
More people have died from falling in bathtubs than from being thrown into
active volcanoes too. Yet when faced with a choice between lava bath and
one with water, I would not opt for the lava. The reason more people are
shot by cops is that there _are_ more cops, not that a cop is more dangerous
than a hitman. If you want to do a better comparison, compare the number
of deaths per person; I'd almost guarantee the average hitman kills orders of
magnitude more people than the average cop.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Snow?" "It's sort of like white, lumpy, rain." --Gilligan's Island
Itamar Shtull-Trauring
...
>Israel is looser, but they've been
> on a continual war footing. This makes a big physological difference, but
> has its own costs.
Um, as an Israeli, I must agree. Even though there are a *lot* of
people carrying weapons, Israelis are, as a rule, impolite. Rude
even.
It's a result of the cultural influence of the Arab marketplace -
shouting, screaming, cursing. A bit toned down, of course.
Itamar - http://www.maxnm.com/
Barry DeCicco
|> In article <4cvq5s$a...@blackice.winternet.com>, <tan...@winternet.com> wrote:
|> >Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
|> >1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
|>
|> 3 murders per day in a town of 4000 people?
|>
|> 1095 murders per year?
|>
|> The entire population murdered in 3.6 years?
|>
|> What is wrong with this picture?
|>
A steady influx of new people - Tombstone was a mining town.
Barry
Keith Wood
b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) wrote:
[I'm pretty sure (but not positive) there are not that many killings in self
[defense now, either. The idea of the would-be victim defending themselves is a
[very powerful and popular one, but it doesn't seem to actually happen that
[often (in a statistical sense as percentage of total homicides), the
[advantages are really with the aggressor.
Well, criminologists say that there are a couple of million successful defenses
per year, just for defenses with firearms (according to criminologists).
Compared to about 30,000 homicides, it looks like there's not so much
"aggressor advantage" as you thought.
Aggressors tend to bug out if there's any serious resistance. There's always a
soft target somewhere else.
David MacLean
karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>>You may see it differently, but on an ongoing basis, people shot by
>>cops far outnumber those shot by Mafia hitman.
>
>More people have died from falling in bathtubs than from being thrown into
>active volcanoes too. Yet when faced with a choice between lava bath and
>one with water, I would not opt for the lava. The reason more people are
>shot by cops is that there _are_ more cops, not that a cop is more dangerous
>than a hitman. If you want to do a better comparison, compare the number
>of deaths per person; I'd almost guarantee the average hitman kills orders of
>magnitude more people than the average cop.
Wrong comparison, Ken. Compare the number of people shot by cops to the
number of cops shot by non-cops. Considering that we permit the cops to
be armed for "self defence" and the use of deadly force is only self defence
when the threat is deadly. Given training, one would expect the cops to
come out ahead most of the time. But when civilians shot by cops outnumber
cops shot by non-cops by at least a hundred to one margin, one has to
stretch the definition of "deadly threat" greatly.
I know of no criminal code in the industrialized world that sanctions
capital punishment for running away from a cop, yet time and time again,
we hear of cops stopping a fugitive with gunfire and it is considered
a "righteous" shooting.
BTW, your profferred comparison is invalid. If you are going to compare
deaths per member for the police, you should compare it to deaths per
member of the Mafia, and not deaths per hitman. If you want to compare
deaths per hitman validly, the most reasonable comparison is to deaths
per executioner, not per policeman.
If you stop thinking of "Police = good" and "Mafia = bad", which, you will
note, is an emotional response, and think of it unemotionally as "Police =
armed organized group" and "Mafia = armed organized group", you will see
just how emotionally based your comparison is.
Anne B. Nonie Rider
I've had a lot of responses explaining to me why some women
support their right to bear arms. I've got no argument with
that, folks, and I didn't say women didn't support an armed
society.
What I tried to say, apparently unclearly, is that I know
very few women who support the idea of a LAWLESS armed
society. Women who have survived various forms of assault
might prefer a society that lets them hunt down and kill
their attacker, but I have not personally met any who felt
that they'd prefer a society in which the man had as much
right to attack them as they had to defend themselves.
Your mileage presumably varies; I'm just talking about
personal experience.
--Nonie
Rob Masters
>In article <4d58uf$o...@cloner3.netcom.com>, cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>says...
>>What amazes me is how many places in the world they obtain real power.
>>As in political power. Heinlein's Luna always seemed like a ripe
>>place for such thuggism to start; it was amazing how little tolerance
>>for thuggery existed in that story. Was the same true for the early
>>history of Australia?
>>intimately with thugs deal with them more effectively? Australia was
>>a dumping ground for the English - must have been plenty of bad eggs,
>>but they built a smooth culture, quickly.
>They built a very peculiar culture, if the Aussies reading this will forgive
>me for saying so. And Australia had an appalling death rate in its early
>years.
>Actually, if I had to point to the historical culture that most nearly
>resembled Heinlein's Luna, it would be colonial Australia -- but it's not
>very close.
Forgiven :-)
In the words of a friend who ...ahhh... /diseminates/ the word of D.R. "Bob"
Dobbs, "If you are abnormal, then you are probably better than most people."
So I don't have a problem with it at all.
Yes, we had an utterly appaling deathrate to begin with. Yes we had a huge
criminal influx. From the legal point of view. From the social concience
committee, we had a huge influx of destitutes and non-conformists. And when
we all settled down on our unihabited land (except for some aborigines, but
they didn't have a machine-based culture, so they don't count), we decided
that we would part most gently with the mother-country...so gently that it
took us 40-odd years to realise that we had done it - and then we felt we
had to hang of the shirttails of another country!
But similar to the Lunies? Not really. No fight for independance, no cost
of living being a cost of living. I think his Luna was his idealisation of
what the USA should have been.
--
Rob Masters -> At Home: r...@perv.metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Speaking for no-one)
GAT d++(---)? H+ s:- !g p? au-- a- w+++ v-(+) C++ U++ P+>+++ L+ 3++ E- N++ K
W--- M- V -po+ Y+ t+ 5+++ !j R++ G('''') !tv b+++ D+ B--- e+(*) u+(-)@ h!(---)
f+ r++ n+ y++(*) | ARA# 47-2 | <*> |"You have forgotten something." - Kosh (B5)
Nolan Jarvis
> Compare the number of people shot by cops to the
>number of cops shot by non-cops. Considering that we permit the cops to
>be armed for "self defence" and the use of deadly force is only self defence
>when the threat is deadly. Given training, one would expect the cops to
>come out ahead most of the time. But when civilians shot by cops outnumber
>cops shot by non-cops by at least a hundred to one margin, one has to
>stretch the definition of "deadly threat" greatly.
Speaking of faulty assumptions, consider that the purpose of a police
officer is to stop the bad guys, by placing him/herself in harm's way
if necessary, while the usual objective of a bad guy (e.g., a
non-cop engaging in activities which might attract the attention of
the cops) is to avoid contact with the cops, if possible.
In tactical terms, if side A is seeking to engage and side B is
seeking to avoid engagement, side B is likely to sustain more
casualties.
-Nolan
"No good deed goes unpunished."
Keith Wood
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
[In article <4cjo7p$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
[Alex Rosser <lxro...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
[>
[>When looking at the statement "An armed society is a polite society", is
[>it possible that some people are confusing polite vs. impolite and safe
[>vs. dangerous? Most of the counter-examples offered seem more "dangerous"
[>than neccesarily "impolite".
[>
[What I can't figure out is why people are so fascinated by "An armed
[society is a polite society"--there's no evidence that there's a strong
[correlation in the real world,
Everywhere I've been where people were routinely armed, the people have been
far more polite (on average) than they are in places where only the cops and
the crooks have weapons.
This is one reason I moved to rural Arizona from metropolitan Southern
California -- and why I refused a VERY lucrative contract offer that would have
put me in Washington, DC!
Josh Kaderlan
>Everywhere I've been where people were routinely armed, the people have been
>far more polite (on average) than they are in places where only the cops and
>the crooks have weapons.
>
>This is one reason I moved to rural Arizona from metropolitan Southern
>California -- and why I refused a VERY lucrative contract offer that would have
>put me in Washington, DC!
>
Arizona, reasons not related to the fact that the people who live there
are routinely armed.
Or are there many murders for impoliteness where you live?
--Josh
Stevens R. Miller
>I have not personally met any [women] who felt
>that they'd prefer a society in which the man had as much
>right to attack them as they had to defend themselves.
I'll introduce you to my fiancee, who was robbed at gunpoint yesterday by a
man who must have felt he had the right to carry a gun and show it to her.
Where we live, the law would take too much away from her if she were to be
prosecuted for even having a gun. But a person who already has a record, or
no sense of much to lose, can carry one and steal things with it.
Right now, a society that would give her an equal right to defend looks pretty
attractive, compared to this one which withholds that right.
(Sorry for the drift into my most-hated of topics, but I think Nonie is
playing the gender card in a game where it's really a Joker.)
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Ken Arromdee
>>The reason more people are
>>shot by cops is that there _are_ more cops, not that a cop is more dangerous
>>than a hitman. If you want to do a better comparison, compare the number
>>of deaths per person; I'd almost guarantee the average hitman kills orders of
>>magnitude more people than the average cop.
>number of cops shot by non-cops.
This fallacy has a source similar to the previous one. There _are_ more
non-cops than there are cops, so even if cops and non-cops shot the exact same
types of people at the exact same rate, there would be many more non-cops shot
by cops than the other way around.
Graydon
: Actually, it's my impression that people who want an armed society
: assume that violence will be done by individuals rather than mobs
: and they also assume that they can defend themselves effectively.
: In fact, I don't know whether mob violence is especially common
: in armed societies--I thought that mobs typically use whatever
: comes to hand rather than guns they get out of their own closets.
Some of the people (*many* of the people, I think) advocating an armed
society are using 'armed' in a sense that imples _competence_ with
weapons, not _possession_ of weapons. That means a whole lot more than
just being able to shoot a tight group, too - talk to anyone who has
taught range safety or coached shooting.
It all comes down to whether you can stand to acknowledge that your
neighbours can kill you any time they feel like it or not, so far as I can
see. Heinlein's pathologically honest protagonists never pretend to
themselves that they're not helpless to prevent that, in the last
analysis, and instead tend to work on the 'feel like it' side of the
equation, rather than the (intractible) 'can kill you' side of equation.
This sort of thing can freak people out pretty badly; not sure why.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Keith Wood
jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
[In article <qMg+wwUN...@bctv.com>, Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.com> wrote:
[>Everywhere I've been where people were routinely armed, the people have been
[>far more polite (on average) than they are in places where only the cops and
[>the crooks have weapons.
[>
[>This is one reason I moved to rural Arizona from metropolitan Southern
[>California -- and why I refused a VERY lucrative contract offer that would have
[>put me in Washington, DC!
[>
[But there are likely other reasons for people's politeness in rural
[Arizona, reasons not related to the fact that the people who live there
[are routinely armed.
Well, considering that a large percentage of the people around here come from
places NOTED for LACK of politeness (New York City, for instance), what do you
attribute this to?
Those of us who live here think it's because it's hard to walk down a street
without seeing someone wearing a pistol, or on their way to/from hunting, or
whatever.
[Or are there many murders for impoliteness where you live?
Nope. In fact, our county has only had a half-dozen murders in the last couple
of years.
Besides, not too many people are impolite around here.
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Eaton <ma...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
>every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
>Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
>experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
Seems to have worked--there hasn't been a big war between the major
powers once they had nuclear weapons. Coincidence?
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Stevens R. Miller
> l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) wrote:
>>I'll introduce you to my fiancee, who was robbed at gunpoint
>I hope we can presume she got through it without physical injury.
Thanks for asking. She's physically fine; witnesses say she was cool as a
cucumber throughout the event (took place at the store where she has just
stopped working). I credit her self-discipline with having kept the violence
to a minimum. Some will say that proves a point, but read below.
> On the one hand, there is always the question of whether the
>situation would have been made *more* dangerous for your fiancee if
>she had had a gun and the bastard who robbed her had seen it. OTOH,
>the question becomes quite a different one if the S.O.B. had had
>something more on his mind than "mere" robbery.
That's the whole of the problem, reduced to its analytic essence. No one will
ever know if being armed would have made a difference, or what kind. My
reason for telling the anecdote, however, was to point up something I believe
RAH would find offensive about the society in which the event took place: the
choice of whether or not to be armed was taken away from my fiancee, by people
who thought they knew better than her, but who weren't there when the price
for their decision came due.
Seth Breidbart
>>Cecil Rose (ala...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>>: Actually, as long as everyone was rational, a world where every
>>: country had nuclear weapons would be a *much* *more* *polite* world.
>>: It's when an irrational madman gets one we have to worry.<
>
>If everyone were *rational*, then why would anyone *need* nuclear weapons?
It's often rational (in the sense of being more likely to lead to the
desired results) to be insance.
Seth
Nancy Lebovitz
What's your evidence on this? Is the style of rudeness the
same?
Nancy Lebovitz
Barry DeCicco <bdec...@sunm4048as.sph.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>What the original person was tyring to say (IMO) was that most of
>the people who casually talk about vigilanteism/mob violence
>being a socially useful thing are those who assume that they will
>not be the target - that, if a mob comes and kills them, they would
>be punished. Traditionally, racial/ethinic/religious/sexual 'minorities'
>and fringe groups have been the targets of mob violence (both large and
>
Actually, it's my impression that people who want an armed society
assume that violence will be done by individuals rather than mobs
and they also assume that they can defend themselves effectively.
In fact, I don't know whether mob violence is especially common
in armed societies--I thought that mobs typically use whatever
comes to hand rather than guns they get out of their own closets.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>Secondly, "organized crime" is a reaction to those things that many people
>want, but society makes illegal. Organized crime has always thrived on
>the things that well meaning people want abolished - gambling, prostitution,
>and drugs for the most part. For "organized crime" to have any impetus
>at all, there must either be profit in it (which their wouldn't be if
>Joe Blow down the street can make the same profit as the crime king pins)
>or a will to power. But will to power can only be satisfied by attaining
>a position where it is quite likely that you will be obeyed. In Heinlein's
>Luna society, such a position is unattainable, and not worth the risk.
>
Doesn't organized crime also get involved in extortion and fencing?
Barry DeCicco
|> In article <4dbfgk$j...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
|> Barry DeCicco <bdec...@sunm4048as.sph.umich.edu> wrote:
|> >
|> >What the original person was tyring to say (IMO) was that most of
|> >the people who casually talk about vigilanteism/mob violence
|> >being a socially useful thing are those who assume that they will
|> >not be the target - that, if a mob comes and kills them, they would
|> >be punished. Traditionally, racial/ethinic/religious/sexual 'minorities'
|> >and fringe groups have been the targets of mob violence (both large and
|> >small scale), and attacks on them have been written off as 'they deserved it'.
|> >
|> Actually, it's my impression that people who want an armed society
|> assume that violence will be done by individuals rather than mobs
|> and they also assume that they can defend themselves effectively.
|>
They assume that, and they also assume that if they, themselves,
are killed by someone, that someone will face some sort of inquiry,
up to and including possible trial and execution for murder (either
that, or they assume that they are bullet-proof).
They assume that if they are 'polite', then they are safe - and their
definition of 'polite' may be politically motivated. For example,
I've seen Rush's insults call 'jokes', which the targets are supposed to
'take', in good humor. But this is just the sort of thing
which people are supposed to punish.
|> In fact, I don't know whether mob violence is especially common
|> in armed societies--I thought that mobs typically use whatever
|> comes to hand rather than guns they get out of their own closets.
|>
No, mobs are perfectly capable of getting their guns out of their closets,
and then meeting. 'Mob' doesn't necessarily mean people doing things on
a second's motice. Remember, our social picture of a lynch mob is from
the Old West, where many people were armed. 'Whipping up a mob' is something
that can take hours or days (not to mention a lot of whiskey), and the
political/psychological preparation time can be much longer.
Barry
Barry DeCicco
This is a limted view of organized crime. Organized crime can definitely
profit from a widely desired but illegal commodity, but it also thrives anywhere
that organized violence can give a competitive edge. Prohibitions help
so much, because they pump in lot of money, which can then be used to
dominate other industries, both legal and illegal, and to pay off the authorities.
It doesn't matter how efficient Joe Blow is, if his operation was shut down -
an unfortunate fire.
Barry
Jeff Suzuki
: In article <lex.750....@interport.net> l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) writes:
: >In article <wsak.84....@halcyon.com> ws...@halcyon.com (W$) writes:
: >>...just think, if you erected a guillotine on the
: >>steps of Congress and lopped off all their heads, like they did in France, the
: >>next group of politicians "might" be more careful about their lies and
: >>shannigans!
: >Is that how things have worked out in France?
: Sadly not. The French must be resistant to change! Still I think it's worth
: trying; like if at first you don't succeed then ..... . Well something like
: that!
No, the reason is that the French lopped off too many heads,
_including_ those who might have changed.
If you ever want to write an SF story that no one would believe, base
it on French history.
Jeffs
Keith Wood
nola...@twave.net (Nolan Jarvis) wrote:
[Speaking of faulty assumptions, consider that the purpose of a police
[officer is to stop the bad guys, by placing him/herself in harm's way
[if necessary,
Yes, this is a faulty assumption. Police officers (at least in the USA) cannot
be required to take ANY specific action -- even if they witness a major crime!
There are numerous cases of cops watching people being killed without taking
any steps to prevent the deaths (my favorite case comes from here in AZ, where
a cop watched a carload of drunks pull out of a bar, then drive a mile down
the wrong side of the road. He didn't so much as turn on his red lights --
until the drunks killed a family coming the other way).
Mark Eaton
(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> In article <marke-10019...@204.236.25.93>,
> Mark Eaton <ma...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >
> >The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
> >every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
> >Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
> >experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
>
> Seems to have worked--there hasn't been a big war between the major
> powers once they had nuclear weapons. Coincidence?
>
...and everyone seems to be breathing a sigh of relief now that the 'major
powers' are 'holstering' their nuclear weapons. Or would you like another
Cuban missile crisis? Might spice things up, ehhh?
And how does 'no big wars' = 'polite'? I see no evidence that nuclear
weapons made anyone more polite. In fact the cold war was downright nasty
at times.
Wayne Johnson
>In article <30F955...@netvision.net.il>,
>Itamar Shtull-Trauring <max...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>>tan...@winternet.com wrote:
>>...
>>>Israel is looser, but they've been
>>> on a continual war footing. This makes a big physological difference, but
>>> has its own costs.
>>
>>Um, as an Israeli, I must agree. Even though there are a *lot* of
>>people carrying weapons, Israelis are, as a rule, impolite. Rude
>>even.
>>It's a result of the cultural influence of the Arab marketplace -
>>shouting, screaming, cursing. A bit toned down, of course.
>What's your evidence on this? Is the style of rudeness the
>same?
I've only dealt with the Israelis and Arabs who've come to the United
States, so I'm no expert, but the word "rudeness" may not be the best
adjective.
I like the word "contentious".
An example: An Egyptian client wanted me to set up his tourist shop
in a vacationer's mall with computer systems. He liked his so well,
that he convinced several friends to get systems, as well, so I wound
up outfitting several stores.
After these purchases (made with a great deal of coffee drinking a
wrangling over price) one of the guys decided he'd paid too much, and
got on my case about it. I gradually lost my temper, and raised my
voice until I was at the same pitch he was - and realized that I had
never been insulted; he was asking me a series of questions. For
example:
"Do you think I'm an idiot? Look at this. Right here in the
magazine. I can get this cheaper anywhere. What am I, a jerk? You
trying to make me look stupid? This is probably some cheap stuff you
found in an alley somewhere. Did you steal it or what?" And so
forth, so I got into the game:
"What the hell is this? Do you think I drive all the way here behind
a sleigh, like Santa Claus? To give it away? I deliver it, and set
it up, and now you want me to type the invoices, too? What am I, an
idiot? What the hell do you want, anyway? Do you go to the market,
and raise hell for free tomatoes when you buy the lettuce for salad?
Eh? Then why chase me like a runaway camel?"
This went on for several minutes, as we both saved face by "insulting"
each other. Finally, I "caved in"; and agreed to sell him a new
printer for a lower price than he saw in the magazine (which is all he
wanted in the first place).
This was cause for tremendous entertainment from the rest of the
shopkeepers, most of whom were Middle Eastern; the tourists wandering
through were totally agog. Later, I found, I gained much respect from
the other shopkeepers for both standing up for my honor, and for
pleasing the customer - who, after I "caved in", poured another gallon
of coffee in me and gave me a bunch of sweatshirts for my kids.
I am now "El Wayne" and my word is to be trusted. Shouting matches
are rare, but still occur, and are enjoyed by everyone.
I have found this same outlook amongst Israelis, with the same result
- all the noise disguises really decent behavior, and vents the
tension of unvoiced hostility or resentment as well.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Warren E. Wolfe
>In article <4cvq5s$a...@blackice.winternet.com>, <tan...@winternet.com> wrote:
>>Societies where everyone is packing tend to look like Tombstone in the late
>>1800's... 3 murders per day in a town of 4,000 people.
>
>3 murders per day in a town of 4000 people?
>
>1095 murders per year?
>
>The entire population murdered in 3.6 years?
>
>What is wrong with this picture?
The only explanation is that it was a REAL bad idea to visit
Tombstone... <Grin> Either that, or the figures are ca-ca, as
those of what's-his-name, maybe "Major," or some other military
name... Anyway, this joker claimed that 200 million slaves
died on slave ships, while bound for the new world from Africa...
a cursory examination of the arithmetic shows that the ships in
the slave fleet would have had to travel at about mach 3 to do
that, and NEVER get a slave to America alive.
It's like a debate... Occasionally, someone shows up with
a box of blank evidence cards, and fills them in with whatever
"facts" are needed, as they are needed. The numbers of homeless
people are like that -- deliberately made up to be shocking.
>--
>Mike Van Pelt Republican mayor in Chicago?
>m...@netcom.com The voters would turn over in their graves.
>KE6BVH -- Marty Helgesen
^^^^^---- Now, THAT'S funny! ----^^^^^
--
___ _ ____ _ ___
/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \ "Hey Rocky!
| _|@ @ __ | Watch me pull some intelligence
\________/ | | \________/ out of the InterNet!"
__/ _/ "But that trick never works."
/) (o _/ "This time for sure."
\____/ Warren Wolfe: Wiz...@Voyager.Net
Josh Kaderlan
>In article <4ddrgi$1t...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
>jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>[But there are likely other reasons for people's politeness in rural
>[Arizona, reasons not related to the fact that the people who live there
>[are routinely armed.
>
>Well, considering that a large percentage of the people around here come from
>places NOTED for LACK of politeness (New York City, for instance), what do you
>attribute this to?
>
polite and didn't like the lack of politeness in the places they were
formerly living? (I know that there are other reasons. But I think that
this may be a contributing one.)
>Besides, not too many people are impolite around here.
>
Chicken-and-egg. I don't know that you can distinguish the cause from
the effect.
--Josh
Wayne Johnson
Just hearing about this pisses me off.
I'm glad she's OK.
To the post; I carefully read Nonie's comment, and I think she may
have been misconstrued.
I think what she's saying is that she can't imagine women wanting to
be in the position of being victims, simply because they had the means
of self defense. In other words, we still need laws for protection,
even if we take steps for self protection (instead of saying, "well,
she has a gun, what do we need robbery laws for?")
If your fiancee had been armed, somebody might still have gotten the
drop on her, or whatever; and it's bad enough for this crap to happen,
without her having to make life or death decisions in a crowded place.
This criminal should be made to pay for this, whenever he gets caught,
now or later, and it shouldn't be your fiancee's responsibility to
mete out the justice - any more than she was responsible for his
asshole behavior in the first place.
This jerk was just wrong, in a better world, somebody would have just
blown his ass away.
Again, I'm REALLY glad she's OK.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Keith Glass
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <4d8485$6...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Secondly, "organized crime" is a reaction to those things that many people
>>want, but society makes illegal. Organized crime has always thrived on
>>the things that well meaning people want abolished - gambling, prostitution,
>>and drugs for the most part. For "organized crime" to have any impetus
>Doesn't organized crime also get involved in extortion and fencing?
No, that's what the IRS and Drug-seizure/forfeiture laws are for. . . ;)
--
* Keith A. Glass, Fairfax, Virginia, USA, Filker/punster at large *
* Geek Code (V3.0): GS d++ s:++ a C++ UBLS P+ W+ N+++ K++ w+ O M+ *
* PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X++ R tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e++ h-/-- r-- y+ *
* PGP FINGERPRINT = DD 80 F5 04 DF 3F 2D 94 08 BE AB FD A3 9A C3 31 *
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> Ignore the gun factor for a moment. Just about everyone--certainly as many
> people as would be armed with guns in the Heinlein society--is armed with two
> usable fists. By the same reasoning used in the gun case, a society full of
> people carrying fists should be well-mannered.
Wrong. The vast majority of people aren't physically trained to use
fists and bodies as instruments of combat, even in a defensive way.
The deterrent value of a firearm is that it can be operated by ANYONE,
which is why the minute percentage of little old ladies who carry .44's
in their handbags in Vermont make life a lot safer for all the OTHER
little old ladies. You don't *need* everyone to be armed, just for
everyone to have the *option* of being armed; when it's not uniformly
safe for the predator to attack the prey, the predator tends to have
a very limited operational lifespan.
In <4cvtrt$c...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>, ala...@earthlink.net
(Cecil Rose) wrote:
> You can't really ignore the gun factor, though. Considering only
> fists, the imopetus would be for everyone to be polite to the biggest,
> stongest, meanest guy around, and rude to the wimps.
> The gun, on the other hand, as the men on the western frontier
> observed, is a great equalizer.
ma...@nwlink.com (Mark Eaton) wrote:
>
> until those predisposed to guns/violence start carrying Uzis. Then
> everyone will need an Uzi. Until someone shows up with a Bazooka... ad
> infinitum.
This is utterly ridiculous. As Massad Ayoob's three-decade-long survey
showed, the average number of shots fired in a lethal confrontation in
the U.S. is only a fraction over TWO. The only thing high-capacity
firearms really let you do is interdict territory. It only takes ONE
bullet to do the job, and carrying an Uzi with a thirty-round magazine
isn't going to help you if even a small percentage of your victims are
armed; one or more will nail you while you're hosing down the first
victim(s).
Note, by the way, that a large-capacity magazine can be used on ANY
magazine-fed weapon; an Uzi is actually no more dangerous than any
other pistol, because it shoots standard pistol ammo.
The habitual use of the word "Uzi" by the media to refer to Bad Guns,
or to imply that a gun owner has a "dangerous" gun, is part of the
ongoing media Big Lie.
If you can't countenance the meticulously researched work of Massad Ayoob,
find a copy of "POINT BLANK: GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA," by Professor
Gary Kleck. He's a self-avowed "Liberal Democrat," and not an NRA member;
but his book has been out for several years, and *no one* has been able to
fault a single bit of information in it, because he's a superb researcher
and analyst. (Among his conclusions: The number of shots a gun will
fire have no effect on its lethality; the number of guns in circulation
has no effect on crime and assault rates; the number of gun-control laws
in operation has no effect on crime and assault rates...) The man is
simply a professional, unbiased, *objective* researcher.
"Bazooka" is not an option; for sixty years it's been illegal for an
individual to own "weapons of mass destruction" or rifles with a bore
larger than .6 inches. This is a *FEDERAL* law, and can only be
gotten round if you have a Class III or higher BATF license; these
are given only to people who've been so heavily investigated that
they're thoroughly terrorized and inoffensive.
> The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove
> that every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it:
> Mutually Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
> experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
Wrong. You are confusing governmental entities with individuals.
In the entire history of the world, no goverment has ever created anything,
and the only thing a government can do that can't be done on a voluntary
basis by people with sensible goals...... is make war.
Governments do not create, they parasitize. A government can force
compliance by the use of institutionalized violence, or by threats of
violence against another government. Weapons of mass destruction are
useful only in aggression against other social entities, not at the
individual level.
*Individuals* have a right to arms for personal protection, and for limiting
the depredations of "governments." (This right is recognized by the U.S.
Constitution, although it's being eroded rapidly.)
"M.A.D." was just that; madness. Personally, I like the idea of
carpet-bombing any nation which begins the construction of nuclear
weapons, since that kind of thing can't go on without the tacit
consent and co-operation of the populace.... but that's just me.
Nukes are not for warfare; they're for power plants and "Orion"-style
spaceship drives.
However, I figure it's just a matter of a few years until we have
the first terrorist nuclear bombing.
In <4d7cog$i...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>
ala...@earthlink.net (Cecil Rose) writes:
>
> Actually, as long as everyone was rational, a world where every
> country had nuclear weapons would be a *much* *more* *polite* world.
> It's when an irrational madman gets one we have to worry.
>
Right. But the problem here is, one irrational madman with a collection
of nukes can ruin *everyone*'s biosphere. A few cobalt-saturated
large bombs in the right places could screw the whole planet up pretty
badly. Now, if everyone carried side arms, the world over, and had
enough good sense and background to realize why using nukes as weapons
instead of heavy-duty construction explosives is a Bad Thing, it would
be different... any time some bozo ordered a set of combat nukes armed
for launch, his second-in-command would shoot him, and save the nukes to
use against dangerously large asteroids heading for Earth......
But we have *way* too many people in positions of power who don't have
good sense.
Or had you forgotten that Israeli raid on an Iraqui nuke "power plant"
in spring 1983, after it was shown that it was being operated as a
fast-breeder, to generate weapons-grade plutonium?
Barry DeCicco
expectations of their casual use. I've seen enough rudeness in the Army,
where everyone had frequent access to guns - people assumed that you wouldn't
just shoot them. I had one person be an a******, and a few minutes later,
I was standing in line behind him, with a 40mm grenade launcher in my hands,
and belt pouches full of grenades. I definitely felt like shooting him -
I was fantasizing about calling him something appopriate, and, when he
turned around to kick my a**, putting an approximately one pound object
through his torso at a few hundred fps, and just enjoying the look on his face.
But I ddin't do it - half because I'm just not a casual killer, and half because
I'd then have to kill myself, or 'enjoy' the rest of my life in as close to
Hell as the U.S. Army could make.
The situations people keep bringing up (historical or speculative) assume that,
if A is impolite to B, B can attack and kill A. The big question is, by
whose standards? A's? B's? Bystanders? Traditionally, this was a very
social question - there were some persons/times/places/insults/etc. in which
killing was authorized (at least, in western societies, but similar rules would
hold for non-western societies):
noble A and noble B in a formal duel - usually face-to-face, with equal weapons.
noble A and any peasant - at just about any time, for any offense. Fairness not
needed (unequal weapons/numbers, back shots, etc.).
white person A and any non-white person - same.
True Faith person A vs heretic/unbeliever/infidel - same.
Real Man vs 'queer' man - same.
Real Man vs 'dyke' woman (e.g., she wouldn't go to bed with him) - same.
Any man vs slut/bitch/whore (e.g., not under male protection, or violates
restrictions on ladylike conduct) - same.
and so on, ad sanguinarium.
This is what people were objecting to - it's very important as to what
society will tolerate, and whose story would be listened to. And many
people don't trust the sort of people who talk this talk.
Example:
There is a man on death row in Pennsylvania - he was condemned for
killing a police officer, who was beating his brother. The officer
was shot in the front, and shot the man in return (so it sounds like
a fair fight, even though back-shooting a man who's beating your brother
would be accepted, in many circumstances). The Philadelphia PD is
notorious for lying, abuse of power, etc. (sort of like the ATF).
In fact, there is now a vast number of cases being reopened, due
to confessed perjury by six officers, who are even now in the process
of narcing on a large number of other officers.
Now, this is exactly the sort of stuff the Republicans/militia/libertarians,
and all of the sort of people who talk this 'armed citizen' stuff love
to rant about (I recently saw some NRA thing, where killing of oppressive
police was explicitly mentioned).
However, they seem to be very silent about this.
You don't see any of them talking shit about killing a few Philly cops.
They seem to not mind.
Those who think that they might be in that man's shoes, worry about
this sort of thing. Those who talk this sort of thing, rarely seem to
be the ones who fear the police, and most especially, the power behind
the police (you can kill one police officer; it's all of society behind
him that gets real tough).
Barry
Bill McHale
> In article <marke-10019...@204.236.25.93>,
> Mark Eaton <ma...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >
> >The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
> >every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
> >Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
> >experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
>
> Seems to have worked--there hasn't been a big war between the major
> powers once they had nuclear weapons. Coincidence?
>
> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
>
> 12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
>
Just because there has been peace between the major powers for fifty
years does not mean that MAD is a good idea. While it is true that MAD
has increased the reluctance of major powers to got to war with each
other, it has also increased the risk of accidental Nuclear War. Further
one could argue that the current economic interdependence of most
countries would make war more difficult now even withour nuclear weapons.
Bill
***************************************************************************
The opinions expressed above are mine and are not intended to represent
the views of UCS, UMBC or the University of Maryland System.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill McHale University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Assistant Systems Administrator University Computing Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Graydon
: Does anyone besides me think that there are reasons to be polite which
: have nothing to do with the threat of violence?
Sure are.
Problem is, it looks a whole lot like you either get taught them fairly
young, or you just won't get it.
I've never seen an analysis of an evolving prisoner's dilemma where some
portion of the population can only choose defect; I'd really like to.
BigEd11
>Seems to have worked--there hasn't been a big war between the major
>powers once they had nuclear weapons. Coincidence?
>
>
Probably not. Although I would point out there hasn't been a big war
using nuclear weapons between the major powers. Lot's of non-nuclear wars
with lot's people hurt and killed. They weren't between the major powers,
but were between their "client" states. And now that the world situation
has changed so much, and *more* nations have nuclear weapons, the chances
for a "little" nuclear war are actually greater! Sleep well...
Ed Green
Jim Kasprzak
>In article <4ddrgi$1t...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
>jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>[>California -- and why I refused a VERY lucrative contract offer that would have
>[>put me in Washington, DC!
>[>
>[Arizona, reasons not related to the fact that the people who live there
>[are routinely armed.
>
>Well, considering that a large percentage of the people around here come from
>places NOTED for LACK of politeness (New York City, for instance), what do
>you attribute this to?
of a city because the people there are impolite are likely to be people
who value politeness highly. These people would probably prefer to be
polite whether the threat of violence were present or not.
Does anyone besides me think that there are reasons to be polite which
have nothing to do with the threat of violence?
--
__ Live from the bustling metropolis of the Big Apple...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, just a guy from New York.
/____ | * Earth is too warm already! *
\_| * Support Global Freezing! *
*==== e-mail: jim...@panix.com
Barry DeCicco
|> Jim Kasprzak (jim...@panix.com) wrote:
|> : Does anyone besides me think that there are reasons to be polite which
|>
|>
|> Problem is, it looks a whole lot like you either get taught them fairly
|> young, or you just won't get it.
|>
|> I've never seen an analysis of an evolving prisoner's dilemma where some
|> portion of the population can only choose defect; I'd really like to.
|>
|> --
|> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Talk to immigrants from a number of places, where there is a nasty
gov't stepping on people, or just civil war and random violence.
They are people who did just that - get out, while they still could.
Barry
Walker on Earth
Bill McHale <wmc...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>On 16 Jan 1996, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> In article <marke-10019...@204.236.25.93>,
>> Mark Eaton <ma...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> >The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
>> >every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
>> >Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
>> >experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
>> powers once they had nuclear weapons. Coincidence?
>Just because there has been peace between the major powers for fifty
>years does not mean that MAD is a good idea. While it is true that MAD
logic to _all_ countries - Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, Portugal, et al.
Nice post, Mark. You didn't attend UMC by any chance?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. And many die that deserve life. Is it in
your power to give it to them? Then do not be so quick to deal out death in
judgement, for even the very wise may not see all ends."
Nancy Lebovitz
Wayne Johnson <cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>
>>In article <30F955...@netvision.net.il>,
>>Itamar Shtull-Trauring <max...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>>>tan...@winternet.com wrote:
>>>...
>>>>Israel is looser, but they've been
>>>> on a continual war footing. This makes a big physological difference, but
>>>> has its own costs.
>>>
>>>Um, as an Israeli, I must agree. Even though there are a *lot* of
>>>people carrying weapons, Israelis are, as a rule, impolite. Rude
>>>even.
>>>It's a result of the cultural influence of the Arab marketplace -
>>>shouting, screaming, cursing. A bit toned down, of course.
>
>>What's your evidence on this? Is the style of rudeness the
>>same?
>
Thanks--but this doesn't cover what I read in Meier Schneider's
_Self-Healing_--he's an Israeli who was amazed at how much more
polite Americans at his workshops were than the Israelis he
usually taught. Israelis would loudly repeat what he'd been
saying to each other, then (still loudly) tell each other to
be quiet while the teacher was talking.
By the way, I recommend the book--the human nervous system is
rather more malleable than it looks.
Wayne Johnson
>(cool story of loud Middle-Eastern post-deal negotiation deleted)
>Thanks--but this doesn't cover what I read in Meier Schneider's
>_Self-Healing_--he's an Israeli who was amazed at how much more
>polite Americans at his workshops were than the Israelis he
>usually taught. Israelis would loudly repeat what he'd been
>saying to each other, then (still loudly) tell each other to
>be quiet while the teacher was talking.
>By the way, I recommend the book--the human nervous system is
>rather more malleable than it looks.
I'm going to find that book, because more and more, I find myself
dealing with Middle Easterner, including Arabs from various countries
and Israelis.
The Jewish clients (yeah, I got a million client stories) I have are
the most fun. One set of Jewish clients are a group that runs a
non-profit foundation for the deaf - which is a real hoot, as watching
these folks argue in sign language is incredible. You simply have to
see a deaf Jewish person registering disbelief at a statement by
someone else; the combination of disgust, incredulity, and sheer
befuddlement at the idiocy of someone's comments cannot be dscribed in
writing. This goes on all the time during meetings - by far, my
favorite group.
Another group - a bunch of investors - is mostly Jewish, and laced
with several Israelis; you've never heard such cutting going on.
Nevertheless, it has style. What I have noticed is that no one is
left out - everyone's opinion, no matter how ridiculed, is listened
to, and considered, before it is trashed. No one is ignored; no one
is without status. The dynamics of the group is different from others
I have seen, where someone is dismissed and then ignored.
It's the kind of situation where Herschel has been declared nuts by
everyone, for wanting to do some silly thing; then, five minutes
later, someone on the losing end of an argument will say, "Well, even
Herschel, this maniac, even he can see my idea is brilliant, right?
Herschel? Dammit, tell them!" and of course, Herschel, pissed at
having been hooted down earlier, will agree with the others that the
idea is worthless, whence the loser will say, "See, this crazy man
Herschel, now he agrees with you! Care to change your mind?"
It works, don't ask me how, and seems to be pretty egalitarian, for
the most part. Also, it's amazingly non-sexist, from what I can tell.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Barry DeCicco
|> In article <4dgqp8$r...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>
|> bdec...@sunm4048at.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) wrote:
|>
|> If this supposition was correct, then "the Mob" would be in almost total
|> control of the American economy.
|>
|> >
|> > It doesn't matter how efficient Joe Blow is, if his operation was shut
|> down - an unfortunate fire.
|>
|> Except that those "unfortunate" fires are much rarer than you hypothesis
|> would suppose. Barry, your "theory" is not backed by the way that most
|> business is conducted.
|> --
|> ***************************************************************************
|> David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
|> ***************************************************************************
|>
Now, David, things may be done differently. Think back, to a less-settled
time (sort of like the Loonies).
You're seeing the end result of things - there was a lot of violence in
American business operations in the 1700-1800's. Those who won tend
to play that down, later.
It took quite a while before we developed institutions, like governments,
that could keep things under check.
You also have to get large businessmen established (possibly by violence),
who like the idea of fighting with lawyers, agents, money, and business
competition (and occasional schmucks in alleys), rather than more direct
methods, which might strike them personally.
Barry
David MacLean
Bill McHale <wmc...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>On 16 Jan 1996, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> In article <marke-10019...@204.236.25.93>,
>> Mark Eaton <ma...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
>> >every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
>> >Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
>> >experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
>>
>> Seems to have worked--there hasn't been a big war between the major
>> powers once they had nuclear weapons. Coincidence?
>>
>>
>> 12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
>>
>years does not mean that MAD is a good idea. While it is true that MAD
>other, it has also increased the risk of accidental Nuclear War. Further
>one could argue that the current economic interdependence of most
>countries would make war more difficult now even withour nuclear weapons.
MAD made possible the current economic interdependence, Bill. Might I
remind you that in 1945, such interdependence did not exist to the extent
that it does now. MAD ensured that nations had the time to become that
interdependant.
And while MAD increased the risk of accidental Nuclear War, it reduced
substantially the risk of *deliberate* nuclear war. Given the hypothesized
effects of a nuclear war, I don't think that the survivors would have
given a damn whether the war was started accidently or deliberately, and
it is my opinion that an accidental war (if that had come about) would have
been less devestating than a deliberate one, since the leaders would have
done everything in their power to reduce the effects once they realized that
it was an accident.
Dealing in cold, hard figures, if, without MAD, the risk of deliberate
nuclear war was 50% and the risk of accidental nuclear war was 0.00005%,
and with MAD, the risk of deliberate nuclear war was reduced to 1% while
the risk of accidental nuclear war was increased to even 0.1%, then
the overall risk of nuclear war was reduced substantially.
You don't have to like the method to recognize it's effectiveness.
The question is, would any other method be as effective in averting nuclear
armageddon given the world socio-economic situation during the period?
Ken Arromdee
>As for extortion, that only works if someone finds out something that
>that you would rather not have found out by others. In Luna society,
>pragmatically, those things boil down to those that will be tolerated
>by your neighbours, and those that will not be.
"Intolerable acts" that in many real-life societies are subject to blackmail
include such things as having the wrong sexual preference, being a member of
the wrong political party, or under some circumstances having the wrong
ancestry.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Snow?" "It's sort of like white, lumpy, rain." --Gilligan's Island
David MacLean
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <4d8485$6...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Secondly, "organized crime" is a reaction to those things that many people
>>want, but society makes illegal. Organized crime has always thrived on
>>the things that well meaning people want abolished - gambling, prostitution,
>>and drugs for the most part. For "organized crime" to have any impetus
>>Joe Blow down the street can make the same profit as the crime king pins)
>>or a will to power. But will to power can only be satisfied by attaining
>>a position where it is quite likely that you will be obeyed. In Heinlein's
>>Luna society, such a position is unattainable, and not worth the risk.
>>
>
"Gambling, prostitution, and drugs" was not meant to be an exhaustive
list. However, they are the mainstays of "organized crime". While
"organized crime" may get involved in fencing, it is not a major source
of revenue. In the proposed Luna society, the penalty for engaging in
it could well be death instead of months behind bars. If the risk is
greater, there must be a collaterally higher profit in order to entice
people to get into it. There is only so much profit to be made in
fencing. The market, in terms of supply and demand, would be much
smaller in Luna society (and I am getting tired of inserting the
terms "posited", "proposed" and similar. From this point on, I will
drop them, but they remain implied: I am aware that I run the risk of
having someone claim that I write as if such a society existed, but
anyone who deigns to attack me on that ground is not interested in
serious debate anyway) than in North America.
As for extortion, that only works if someone finds out something that
that you would rather not have found out by others. In Luna society,
pragmatically, those things boil down to those that will be tolerated
by your neighbours, and those that will not be. If someone chooses to
withhold information about an intolerable act for their own profit,
then they have lost the threat ability. It goes something like this:
"He did this!"
"He did? Out the air lock with him. Now how did you find out?
When did you find out? Six months ago? And you didn't tell us?
You can join him!"
David MacLean
nola...@twave.net (Nolan Jarvis) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>> Compare the number of people shot by cops to the
>>number of cops shot by non-cops. Considering that we permit the cops to
>>be armed for "self defence" and the use of deadly force is only self defence
>>when the threat is deadly. Given training, one would expect the cops to
>>come out ahead most of the time. But when civilians shot by cops outnumber
>>cops shot by non-cops by at least a hundred to one margin, one has to
>>stretch the definition of "deadly threat" greatly.
>
>Speaking of faulty assumptions, consider that the purpose of a police
>officer is to stop the bad guys, by placing him/herself in harm's way
>non-cop engaging in activities which might attract the attention of
>the cops) is to avoid contact with the cops, if possible.
>
>In tactical terms, if side A is seeking to engage and side B is
>seeking to avoid engagement, side B is likely to sustain more
>casualties.
>
Only if side A is NOT restricted in using deadly force in self defence
only, which is exactly my point. The police are supposed to be under
those restrictions.
And your assumption is incorrect. The purpose of the police is NOT to
stop the bad guys, except indirectly through their presence. Claiming that
this is their purpose is wishful thinking.
The existance of a police force is supposed to be a deterent. When that
deterent does not work, then it is the purpose of the police to apprehend
the bad guys.
If it were the purpose of the police to stop the bad guys, then we would
allow them to arrest on suspicion that someone *might* in the future
commit a crime. This is not the case
Wayne Johnson
>Feynman mentioned in his second book _What to *You* care ..._ a
>meeting of the fathers of the bomb run by Oppenheimer. There were
>over ten people at the meeting and they all gave an opinion on the
>matter at hand before any discussion was allowed. The ones who
>agreed with a previous speaker felt obliged to come up with another,
>possibly contentious or silly, point of view rather than restate what
>the previous speaker had said.
>There are firm historical reasons why Jews do this. Our books of
>commentry are never written from one point of view, instead they
>give a passage and then write "Rabbi Akiba said .... Rabbi Roosha
>said .... Rabbi Nuveh said ....". Sometimes (rarely) they actually
>say the same thing. Sometimes they contradict each other. Sometimes
>they provide different, but not contradictory, points of view.
>The four characters in Heinlein's _Beast_, who all get to narrate the
>story in turn, remind me of this way of writing.
Not being Jewish, I had no context in which to place the behavior of
my investor clients. Thanks for this comment, which makes a lot of
sense.
The parallels with "Number of the Beast" hit me right between the
eyes, as this is exactly the same process, but it involves the reader,
not the protagonists. Many of their problems were due to lack of
communication between each other, but all of their feelings and
comments were revealed to us, allowing us to make our own judgements.
Had they been as open with each other, the "rotating command" that
occurred in the first part of the book may not have been necessary.
In their defense, I must say that they were under pressure for time -
the Black Hats were hard after them - but openness, and discussion,
might have eliminated many problems, much sooner.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Barry DeCicco
|> In article <4dgh6f$f...@universe.digex.net>
|> nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
<about 'organized crime'>
|>
|> "Gambling, prostitution, and drugs" was not meant to be an exhaustive
|> list. However, they are the mainstays of "organized crime". While
|> "organized crime" may get involved in fencing, it is not a major source
|> of revenue. In the proposed Luna society, the penalty for engaging in
|> it could well be death instead of months behind bars. If the risk is
|> greater, there must be a collaterally higher profit in order to entice
|> people to get into it. There is only so much profit to be made in
|> fencing. The market, in terms of supply and demand, would be much
|> smaller in Luna society (and I am getting tired of inserting the
|> terms "posited", "proposed" and similar. From this point on, I will
|> drop them, but they remain implied: I am aware that I run the risk of
|> having someone claim that I write as if such a society existed, but
|> anyone who deigns to attack me on that ground is not interested in
|> serious debate anyway) than in North America.
|>
No, fencing would be quite lucrative. There would be a lot
of things in demand (like life support), and someone who
could arrange for them would be rich. Remember, 'rich' depends
on the society. In the RAH 'Loonie' society, 'rich could
mean large living quarters, lots of water and the sort of food
that requires space and energy to produce, and access to other
luxuries (like women). Just because a society is poor, doesn't
mean that people won't steal, and risk their lives.
And, on the Moon, being able to 'launder' goods would probably be
harder, and therefore, those who could do it would make more.
|> As for extortion, that only works if someone finds out something that
|> that you would rather not have found out by others. In Luna society,
|> pragmatically, those things boil down to those that will be tolerated
|> by your neighbours, and those that will not be. If someone chooses to
|> withhold information about an intolerable act for their own profit,
|> then they have lost the threat ability. It goes something like this:
|>
|> "He did this!"
|>
|> "He did? Out the air lock with him. Now how did you find out?
|> When did you find out? Six months ago? And you didn't tell us?
|> You can join him!"
|>
Are we using the same dictionary? You are talking about blackmail.
(note: extortion is still nice). You don't publicly rat on someone,
if they don't pay you; you leak the information, and let evidence be
discovered - true, this is not a job for amatures, which is why
the pro's tend to do better.
Second: your scenario is a little ridiculous.
a) Someone's stupid enough to admit that
they concealed information for a time? Wrong - say that you just
discovered it. And, better, you let third parties 'discover' it.
b) Leaning on people for this is detrimental - if people figure
that their knowledge of another's actions incriminates themselves,
then they keep their mouths shut. Always take care of your informants.
Barry
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Ken, you ask me to accept the above ceteras parabis, but all other things
>are NOT equal. If we assume that cops are restricted in their use of
>deadly force to life threatening situations, and we assume (perhaps
>mistakenly) that cops are better trained than those who would put a
>cop in a life threatening situation, then with the second assumption,
>we would find that in the majority of cases, the cops would be victorious.
>However, not in the *vast* majority of cases, as it is now.
Except that the cops are allowed to use deadly force when somebody
_else_ is threatened, so your statistics aren't valid, because in such
a case, there is _no_ chance of a cop being killed.
>You are invited to work up a mathmatical model for the above mentioned
>rates. You will find that in the model, the number of thugs versus the
>number of cops is irrelevant, and that the model, given the deadly force
>only in response to life threatening situations, is dependant only on
>the average edge that training gives the cops over their adversaries.
It's also dependent on the fraction of the time that the person
threatened is a cop.
Seth
Ken Arromdee
Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>Except that the cops are allowed to use deadly force when somebody
>_else_ is threatened, so your statistics aren't valid, because in such
>a case, there is _no_ chance of a cop being killed.
>>You are invited to work up a mathmatical model for the above mentioned
>>rates. You will find that in the model, the number of thugs versus the
>>number of cops is irrelevant, and that the model, given the deadly force
>>only in response to life threatening situations, is dependant only on
>>the average edge that training gives the cops over their adversaries.
>It's also dependent on the fraction of the time that the person
>threatened is a cop.
I did goof in my post--_if_ everyone shoots people randomly at exactly the
same rate, you'd expect to see as many non-cops shot by cops as vice versa,
and the fact that there are more non-cops doesn't affect it. However, there
are other factors that do: the one you mentioned, and another: the reference
was to shootings. Cops go armed, and regular people don't. The number of
cops shooting non-cops over the reverse will end up being inflated by the
greater rate at which cops carry weapons--probably at least an order of
magnitude.
Anne B. Nonie Rider
> Remember, our social picture of a lynch mob is from
> the Old West, where many people were armed.
It is? MY social picture of a lych mob is from the Not-So-Old
South, and it involves a lot more than a simple hanging. And
yes, I've seen pictures, thank you.
I try not to take much of my historical sense from the
"Old West," which was a brief transition later romanticized
into something it never was. Anybody care to bring the
actual Old West into this discussion from personal research
rather than movies and other people's books?
--Nonie
BenZ7
Steve Taylor
dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>> This is a limted view of organized crime. Organized crime can definitely
>>profit from a widely desired but illegal commodity, but it also thrives
>>anywhere that organized violence can give a competitive edge.
> Organized violence can give a competitive edge to practically any business,
> Barry, and yet for most businesses, violence is a rare aberation rather than
> the norm. It is only in the illegal commodities business where violence
> finds a home. During prohibition, the booze business was fraught with
> violence. Does that apply today? Does Ron Bacardi, Inc hire hitmen to
> rub out Seagrams executives?
Organised crime may be at its best in illegal businesses, but it can be
found elsewhere. Melbourne (Australia, not Florida) where I live, has had
persistent problems with organised crime dominating wholesale fruit and
vegetable trading.
I should add that both fruit and vegetables are legal in Australia.
Steve
> David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
Chris Croughton
sla...@entergrp.demon.co.uk "Simon Slavin" writes:
>The four characters in Heinlein's _Beast_, who all get to narrate the
>story in turn, remind me of this way of writing.
Hey, you mentioned something on-topic for this thread! You can't do
that, you'll have to leave! Start your own thread if you want to
mention him, not use one which has his name in the subject!
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Rick Cook
>What I tried to say, apparently unclearly, is that I know
>very few women who support the idea of a LAWLESS armed
>society. Women who have survived various forms of assault
>might prefer a society that lets them hunt down and kill
>their attacker, but I have not personally met any who felt
>that they'd prefer a society in which the man had as much
>right to attack them as they had to defend themselves.
>
>personal experience.
Important distinction between armed and lawful and armed and lawless.
Let me point out first that such societies are not lawless, unless you mean
in the sense of formal laws (which sociologists tell us are much less
important in controlling our behavior than we normally think.)
Second, all to often the women I know who favor this see 'armed' and
'lawful' as opposites. The ones who have experienced the results first hand
prefer 'armed and 'lawless' to 'unarmed and lawful."
--RC
Rick Cook
>On the one hand, there is always the question of whether the
>situation would have been made *more* dangerous for your fiancee if
>she had had a gun and the bastard who robbed her had seen it.
Not statistically. You're better off with a gun.
Nor according to the street criminals, mostly former, who talked to me
about it when I was a reporter. They said that one of the first things a
street criminal does is check out a would-be victim. If the potential
victim doesn't give off the right vibes, he goes and finds someone else.
Potential possession of a firearm is a serious contraindication to pursue
the matter.
--RC
Rick Cook
>No, fencing would be quite lucrative.
For as long as you survived anyway. The people who discovered you were
selling their property would be likely to take offense.
--RC
David MacLean
Come now, Steve. This is like saying that since house flies can be
found everywhere, that our society is based on house flies.
And how much "dominance" is there? If organized crime truly dominated
the industry, you would not hear a word about it, since that would be
the "norm" and hardly newsworthy.
Once again we find that that someone has confused the sensationalism
of the press who print the "out of the ordinary" with what the real
world is up to.
BTW, fruits and vegetables may well be legal in Australia, but is growing
what you want when you want legal? Or are there quotas?
Mike Van Pelt
>Someone like Rush Limbaugh wouldn't last a week in that kind of society. In
>fact he wouldn't have lasted a week a century ago. They might not have shot
>him but they might have ridden him out of town on a rail, in tar and
>feathers.
Harumph. Check out the kinds of scurrilous attacks printed in every
daily paper a century ago. Rush's little bon mots are really mild
stuff by comparison.
There's nothing new under the sun... Doubtless people back then
complained about the cheapened level of discourse, and how no one
*ever* said anything so impolite about President Jefferson. But
take a look at what the papers of the day said about *him*... Oy!
(No sense of history... What *do* they teach in schools these days?)
--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the | Mike Van Pelt
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to | m...@netcom.com
safety) by menacing it with an endless series of | KE6BVH
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -H. L. Mencken.
Philip Chee
>Test of crossposting newsgroups'
Does that mean that we should expect another bimbo ad spam from AOL? ( Or
Make Money Fast, or ... )
Philip
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-546-6142
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ž 9751.01 ž If you save the world too often, it begins to expect it.
Peter Huebner
>All I am saying is that the figures tend to show that the police are NOT
>operating under the principle of deadly force in response only to life
>threatening situations. Whether that is "good" or "bad" is another issue
>entirely. However, this phase of the debate started when I compared the
>police to other "gangs".
There are a lot of interesting psychological and sociological factors
involved here. In *this* country ( New Zealand ) we do not have police
that are routinely carrying firearms, although the do have them available.
We had a grand total of 3 people shot by police last year, and this is
considered an outrageous and unacceptable number, both by the police and
the public at large ( although I'm sure there will be exceptions ). Two
of those people were mentally ill persons waving guns about at the time,
the third was taking the occupants of a police station hostage and declared
intent to kill them regardless.
I think paranoia has a lot to do with the situation. If a cop lives under
the permanent fear that someone reaching [...] is in fact going for a handgun,
then shit is likely to happen. We do not have handguns available to the
public in this country - hence our coppers don't feel they have to wave guns
in our faces every time they want to see a drivers licence.
Vice versa, I used to live in Germany during the 70s, during the height of
the Bader Meinhoff hysteria when cops were routinely conducting traffic
searches while armed with submachine guns . . . quite a number of petty
crims, as well as innocent bystanders got terminated erroneously ( Oops ),
in a country where handguns are also not available to the public at large,
but where cops go armed all the time.
I read two things into this.
One: whenever people go armed, shit is more likely to happen, because people
make mistakes.
Two: if frightened people carry guns, shit _will_ happen.
cheers, Peter
--
Rick Cook
> They assume that, and they also assume that if they, themselves,
>are killed by someone, that someone will face some sort of inquiry,
>up to and including possible trial and execution for murder (either
>that, or they assume that they are bullet-proof).
Uh, on what evidence do you assert this? Most of the folks I know who fit
your description don't believe anything of the kind.
> They assume that if they are 'polite', then they are safe
A little more to it than that.
I think you're responding to your own emotions and beliefs rather than to
what these people you're putatively describing feel or believe.
> - and their definition of 'polite' may be politically motivated. For
example,
>I've seen Rush's insults call 'jokes', which the targets are supposed to
>'take', in good humor. But this is just the sort of thing which people
are >supposed to punish.
Someone like Rush Limbaugh wouldn't last a week in that kind of society. In
fact he wouldn't have lasted a week a century ago. They might not have shot
him but they might have ridden him out of town on a rail, in tar and
feathers.
--RC
Rick Cook
>No, mobs are perfectly capable of getting their guns out of their closets,
>and then meeting. 'Mob' doesn't necessarily mean people doing things on
>a second's motice. Remember, our social picture of a lynch mob is from
>the Old West, where many people were armed. 'Whipping up a mob' is
>something
>that can take hours or days (not to mention a lot of whiskey), and the
>political/psychological preparation time can be much longer.
In fact it usually is. Which is why mobs can be headed off or defended against.
(Read Maria Sandoz' "Old Jules" for the story of one way to head off this
kind of trouble.)
--RC
Rick Cook
>I think what she's saying is that she can't imagine women wanting to
>be in the position of being victims, simply because they had the means
>of self defense. In other words, we still need laws for protection,
>even if we take steps for self protection (instead of saying, "well,
>she has a gun, what do we need robbery laws for?")
>
Uh, I dont' think _anyone_ is saying that, Wayne.
Part of the problem is a confusion between 'law' as a legal code and 'law'
as the rules we live by. You have the latter (usually) whether or not you
have the former.
So your 'lawless' society isn't.
--RC
David MacLean
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <4dr564$o...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>Ken, you ask me to accept the above ceteras parabis, but all other things
>>are NOT equal. If we assume that cops are restricted in their use of
>>deadly force to life threatening situations, and we assume (perhaps
>>mistakenly) that cops are better trained than those who would put a
>>cop in a life threatening situation, then with the second assumption,
>>we would find that in the majority of cases, the cops would be victorious.
>>However, not in the *vast* majority of cases, as it is now.
>
>_else_ is threatened, so your statistics aren't valid, because in such
>a case, there is _no_ chance of a cop being killed.
>
Seth, what I said was cops are restricted in their use of deadly force
to life threatening situations. I did not restrict his to only situations
where the cops life is threatened. However, the situations where somebody
else's life is threatened but the cop's life is not are rare. Even if I
had not included these situations (which I did), the statistics would not
be skewed enough to explain the discrepancy.
>>You are invited to work up a mathmatical model for the above mentioned
>>rates. You will find that in the model, the number of thugs versus the
>>number of cops is irrelevant, and that the model, given the deadly force
>>only in response to life threatening situations, is dependant only on
>>the average edge that training gives the cops over their adversaries.
>
>It's also dependent on the fraction of the time that the person
>threatened is a cop.
>
Splitting hairs, since experience equals training.
Rick Cook
>
>What the original person was tyring to say (IMO) was that most of
>the people who casually talk about vigilanteism/mob violence
>being a socially useful thing are those who assume that they will
>not be the target - that, if a mob comes and kills them, they would
>be punished.
As it happens the the original person is incorrect, if that is indeed what
she means.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Just because there has been peace between the major powers for fifty
>years does not mean that MAD is a good idea.
It was a lousy idea. But it worked.
> While it is true that MAD has increased the reluctance of major powers
to got >to war with each other,
Which was the point, was it not?
it has also increased the risk of accidental Nuclear War. Further
>one could argue that the current economic interdependence of most
>countries would make war more difficult now even withour nuclear weapons.
That argument was also made in the years just before World War I. It was
very popular then and as events proved largely correct. However it did not
stop World War I.
--RC
>
David MacLean
>>that you would rather not have found out by others. In Luna society,
>>pragmatically, those things boil down to those that will be tolerated
>>by your neighbours, and those that will not be.
>
>include such things as having the wrong sexual preference, being a member of
>the wrong political party, or under some circumstances having the wrong
>ancestry.
But the above "intolerable acts" are all the results of organized prejudice.
The power that homophobia has in our society is reflected in law, something
that would not hold in Luna society. Being a member of the wrong political
party can hardly hold in the described Luna society. And "wrong" ancestry
comes from an "outsider" minority amoungst a largely homogeneous majority.
Such is not a description of Luna.
But all of them come from a power imbalance inherent in the political
system extant. In a system where the power is as diversified as it is
in the Luna system, that imbalance does not hold.
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4dsjjg$c...@panix3.panix.com>,
>Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>>_else_ is threatened, so your statistics aren't valid, because in such
>>a case, there is _no_ chance of a cop being killed.
>>>rates. You will find that in the model, the number of thugs versus the
>>>number of cops is irrelevant, and that the model, given the deadly force
>>>only in response to life threatening situations, is dependant only on
>>>the average edge that training gives the cops over their adversaries.
>>It's also dependent on the fraction of the time that the person
>>threatened is a cop.
>
>same rate, you'd expect to see as many non-cops shot by cops as vice versa,
>and the fact that there are more non-cops doesn't affect it. However, there
>are other factors that do: the one you mentioned, and another: the reference
>was to shootings. Cops go armed, and regular people don't. The number of
>cops shooting non-cops over the reverse will end up being inflated by the
>greater rate at which cops carry weapons--probably at least an order of
>magnitude.
True, but that is if you believe that a cop faced with a knife wielding
junkie 20 feet away is a threat to the life of the cop with his gun drawn.
It so happens that I do not, but that is neither here nor there. Even your
order of magnitude explanation will not explain away the preponderance
of civilians killed by cops over cops killed by non-cops.
My original point still remains - viewed unemotionally, the cops, when it
comes to killing, are like any other "gang". They do, however, enjoy
social "protections" not afforded to those other gangs.
Imagine the following situation. Youth with a gun shoots and kills another
human being with a gun. Youth claims that he was acting in self defence,
that the person that he killed was trying to kill him. Witness testimony,
as it is in so many other cases, was spotty, contradictory, and by no means
showed that this youth is lying.
Chances are, the absolute worst thing that will happen to this youth is
that he will be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, but chances are quite
good that he will walk.
But lets replace the "human being" in the above with "police officer".
Chances are quite good that this youth will now be convicted of murder, and
all because the victim was a cop, and we presume that all cops are good guys.
Even if the cop in question was a "bad" cop, chances are good that this
information would not be available to the defence.
To may way of thinking, if we entrust the power that we do to cops, we must
never assume that the cops will use this power in a manner that we want them
to. Entrusting anyone with the power that we entrust to the police should
be a cause for suspicion, because, as history has taught us, power corrupts.
Police are human beings.
What it boils down to is something that the Roman's enunciated, but certainly
were not the first to feel, that who should watch the watchers?
Rick Cook
>>In fact he wouldn't have lasted a week a century ago. They might not have
>>shot him but they might have ridden him out of town on a rail, in tar and
>>feathers.
>
>daily paper a century ago. Rush's little bon mots are really mild
>stuff by comparison.
>
--RC
David MacLean
And thus set themselves up as bigger targets.
And theft would be more difficult in a "poor" society since there would
be very little to steal. In a "rich" society, such as America, people have
to lock up everything, whereas in a poor society, little is locked up,
firstly because security costs, and secondly there is very little that
needs to be secured.
In addition, theft in America has not the devestating impact that it has
in a poor society. Look at the things that are stolen - cars, bikes, TV's,
VCR's, more recently PC's. There is very little that is stolen that would
result in starvation. In a poor society, things are different. Most
possessions are not in the luxury catagory, but in the necessity catagory.
If you steal something from a poor family, you likely condemn them to
hunger at the very least.
>
>|> As for extortion, that only works if someone finds out something that
>|> that you would rather not have found out by others. In Luna society,
>|> pragmatically, those things boil down to those that will be tolerated
>|> by your neighbours, and those that will not be. If someone chooses to
>|> withhold information about an intolerable act for their own profit,
>|> then they have lost the threat ability. It goes something like this:
>|>
>|> "He did this!"
>|>
>|> "He did? Out the air lock with him. Now how did you find out?
>|> When did you find out? Six months ago? And you didn't tell us?
>|> You can join him!"
>|>
>
> Are we using the same dictionary? You are talking about blackmail.
>(note: extortion is still nice). You don't publicly rat on someone,
>if they don't pay you; you leak the information, and let evidence be
>discovered - true, this is not a job for amatures, which is why
>the pro's tend to do better.
>
Which presupposes a massive underground where one can attain a professional
rating in crime.
BTW, it is hard for extortion (the use of threats to induce someone to
do something) to exist in a society where everyone is an equal threat
to everyone else. This is why I supposed blackmail as the threat.
Any other form of extortion (Do this or I'll kill you) implies continuous
maintenance of the threat lest the victim turn around and kill the
threatener.
>
>Second: your scenario is a little ridiculous.
>
>
>a) Someone's stupid enough to admit that
> they concealed information for a time? Wrong - say that you just
> discovered it. And, better, you let third parties 'discover' it.
>
But you seemed to have been his friend. Come to think of it, you met
regularly. And, come to think of it, you seem to be spending more
in the last little while than is reasonable for a man in your line of
work to be spending. Pete, doesn't this sound like the voice of your
anonymous caller?
>b) Leaning on people for this is detrimental - if people figure
> that their knowledge of another's actions incriminates themselves,
> then they keep their mouths shut. Always take care of your informants.
Spoken like a journalist, which most people are not.
David MacLean
David MacLean
--
Nancy Lebovitz
Simon Slavin <sla...@entergrp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Feynman mentioned in his second book _What to *You* care ..._ a
>meeting of the fathers of the bomb run by Oppenheimer. There were
>over ten people at the meeting and they all gave an opinion on the
>matter at hand before any discussion was allowed. The ones who
>agreed with a previous speaker felt obliged to come up with another,
>possibly contentious or silly, point of view rather than restate what
>the previous speaker had said.
>
>There are firm historical reasons why Jews do this. Our books of
>commentry are never written from one point of view, instead they
>give a passage and then write "Rabbi Akiba said .... Rabbi Roosha
>said .... Rabbi Nuveh said ....". Sometimes (rarely) they actually
>say the same thing. Sometimes they contradict each other. Sometimes
>they provide different, but not contradictory, points of view.
>
History doesn't seem like enough to explain this.....Yes, the
Talmud is full of multiple opinions, but the Talmud wouldn't have
been like that if Jews hadn't thought it was a good way to figure
out what was intended in the Torah, and it wouldn't be a continuing
part of the culture if people hadn't continued to find it satisfying.
Would anyone have any knowledge about whether there's a connection
between Talmudic argument and ancient Greek philosophical discussion?
I'm adding soc.culture.jewish to this thread.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Wayne Johnson
>--RC
I understand what you're getting at, where we have "Laws" and "Rules
to Live By".
My point about the law and the ladies lack of desire to see it gone is
based on some simple principles. What she was saying was quite
simple:
A. She could live in a society with rigid legal codes, which allow
her to depend not only on her own right and ability to defend herself
against attack, but allow all men the same right from attack from
women.
B. She did not want to live in a society without a strict legal code,
where the "rules to live by" simply stated that if attacked, you were
entitled to self defense, without society being there to give you
additional redress should you not be successful.
This is an interpretation; but that's how I read her comment. As a
matter of record, lots of folks in this thread have discussed openly
the merits of dropping strictures in the legal code about murder -
witness the dueling brouhaha - and she was merely saying that giving
her the right to kill her assailant would not be desirable, if he was
freely given the right to kill her, supposedly in self defense.
She wanted better laws.
I just want society to get into the act, somehow. The reason is
simple; if i get murdered, I don't want the perpetrator to be allowed
to get away with it simply because I didn't mount an adequate self
defense.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>Yet it doesn't happen Barry. And your original hypothesis stated that
>violence is sure to happen whenever it will give the originator a competitive
>advantage. Are you modifying that stand now?
If I were Barry, I'd stand pat.
You lose your competitive advantage when you're in jail.
When violence is necessary to keep a competitive advantage, it is
used, even by large corporations and wealthy individuals. They just
need to be assured that the violence cannot be traced to them by law
enforcement, or that the law is on their side in a physical dispute.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
Why give Steve's comment such short shrift?
In New York, a similar problem with organized crime exists in the
wholesale fish business. According to law enforcement officials, the
business is dominated by organized crime.
Dominated means "ruled and controlled", not "owned".
Your home could be dominated by a maddened criminal, with your family
held at gunpoint. It wouldn't mean he owned your home, or that you
would call it an ordinary circumstance, or your neighbors would say,
"Well, at Dave's house, they're all just happy as clams living at
gunpoint with that madman."
The problem in any industry with perishables - fruit, vegetables,
fish, meat, whatever - is that contesting with criminals can ruin your
product, just in wasted time. That, couple with the difficulty of
obtaining new product, allows these leeches to grab their percentage
and ruin your profits. It's an old game, and still played.
Read the news, you'll see.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Gary Farber
: In article <4e01pt$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> be...@aol.com writes:
: >Test of crossposting newsgroups'
: Does that mean that we should expect another bimbo ad spam from AOL? ( Or
: Make Money Fast, or ... )
No, that would be "Make.Mike.Glicksohn.Reference.Fast." :-)
And I didn't even mention alt.test to Ben; see how courteous I was. . . ?
:-)
--
-- Gary Farber Middlemiss gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 for DUFF Brooklyn, NY, USA
Doug O'Morain
>I'm adding soc.culture.jewish to this thread.
Is this the first time the Floating Heinlein Flamewar has drifted
onto soc.cuture.jewish?
--
Douglas B. O'Morain, Technical Writer | "I think it's the smiling. Men don't
http://reality.sgi.com/employees/dougom | think you should be smiling while
DNRC: Supreme Gadget Tinker | doing sports."
Silicon Graphics, Inc. | -- Sandra Sevenson, London Observer,
dou...@sgi.com | on why men don't like figure skating
Thomas R. Schwerdt
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> On the one hand, there is always the question of whether the
>situation would have been made *more* dangerous for your fiancee if
>the question becomes quite a different one if the S.O.B. had had
>something more on his mind than "mere" robbery.
>
Sure, it's possible that the fiancee having a gun could have made the
situation more dangerous -- but it's not likely. If you check out the
FBI Unified Crime Reports, victims who defend themselves with a firearm
are less likely to be injured, less likely to have the robbery succeed, etc.,
even when compared to those who complied completely with the criminal.
-Tom the Melaniephile
Nancy Lebovitz
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>As for extortion, that only works if someone finds out something that
>that you would rather not have found out by others. In Luna society,
>pragmatically, those things boil down to those that will be tolerated
>by your neighbours, and those that will not be. If someone chooses to
>withhold information about an intolerable act for their own profit,
>then they have lost the threat ability. It goes something like this:
>
the word to mean using threats of violence--the classic "Nice little
business you've got here--be a pity is something happened to it"
situation.
I'd call the process you're describing blackmail.
David MacLean
Sorry, but when law enforcement officials make comment on the extent of
crime, I always keep in mind that the budgets of the police department
depend on public perception of how bad the crime problem is.
I also keep in mind the "street value" of the drugs they confiscate, as
if every bit of a key of cocaine would be sold as single hits, and there
is no spillage, to wastage, and no testing in its descent down the
supply chain.
>Dominated means "ruled and controlled", not "owned".
>
So where did I say that dominated meant "owned"?
>Your home could be dominated by a maddened criminal, with your family
>held at gunpoint. It wouldn't mean he owned your home, or that you
>would call it an ordinary circumstance, or your neighbors would say,
>"Well, at Dave's house, they're all just happy as clams living at
>gunpoint with that madman."
>
Come now. To "dominate" the wholesale fish business in New York calls
for either a massive influx of directed muscle, or patience and building,
neither one of which are attributes of the "madman". Your comparison
is irrelevant.
>The problem in any industry with perishables - fruit, vegetables,
>fish, meat, whatever - is that contesting with criminals can ruin your
>product, just in wasted time. That, couple with the difficulty of
>obtaining new product, allows these leeches to grab their percentage
>and ruin your profits. It's an old game, and still played.
>
>Read the news, you'll see.
>
Wayne, did you fail to read my comment on the sensationalistic aspects
of "the news"? Your saying "Read the news" in reply to my comments
makes about as much sense as you saying "Read Journal X" in reply to
my comment that Journal X presents fraudulent information, ie, no sense
at all.
David MacLean
Point two, I believe, comes to the crux of the debate. The people that
are vehemently opposed to the Luna society in tMiaHM imagine that such
a social setup is dumped on the current society, and that the fear factor
continues indefinately. Heinlein points out that the society was the
result of evolution, and he suggests that the resulting Luna citizen is
anything but frightened.
As for point one, that is the telling point of Luna society, since the people
who make the mistakes become quickly dead. Take, for example, the person
who shot the Japanese student (American story, don't know if it reached you)
because he thought that the student approaching his house was a threat.
In Luna society, the results of that mistake would not be a long court case,
some embarassment, and exonoration.
The people that make such mistakes are weeded out.
Lisa Aaronson
>In <4e72em$5...@universe.digex.net> nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz)
>writes:
>>I'm adding soc.culture.jewish to this thread.
>Is this the first time the Floating Heinlein Flamewar has drifted
>onto soc.cuture.jewish?
Why crosspost to SCJ? Last I saw, it was about Heinlein getting justifiably
angry at Panshin for reading his mail.
Lisa
-------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- from the TV show "Fame"
David MacLean
m...@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) wrote:
>In article <4e22rl$9...@news2.delphi.com>, Rick Cook <rc...@BIX.com> wrote:
>>Someone like Rush Limbaugh wouldn't last a week in that kind of society. In
>>fact he wouldn't have lasted a week a century ago. They might not have shot
>>him but they might have ridden him out of town on a rail, in tar and
>>feathers.
>
>Harumph. Check out the kinds of scurrilous attacks printed in every
>daily paper a century ago. Rush's little bon mots are really mild
>stuff by comparison.
>
>complained about the cheapened level of discourse, and how no one
>*ever* said anything so impolite about President Jefferson. But
>take a look at what the papers of the day said about *him*... Oy!
>
>(No sense of history... What *do* they teach in schools these days?)
Mike, you didn't pick out that gem of history from what they taught you
in public school, now did you?
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>
>>violence is sure to happen whenever it will give the originator a competitive
>>advantage. Are you modifying that stand now?
>
>If I were Barry, I'd stand pat.
>
>You lose your competitive advantage when you're in jail.
>
As Hitler lost his after the Beer Hall Putzch?
>When violence is necessary to keep a competitive advantage, it is
>used, even by large corporations and wealthy individuals. They just
>need to be assured that the violence cannot be traced to them by law
>enforcement, or that the law is on their side in a physical dispute.
But necessity was not mentioned in the original hypothesis. And who
decides whether or not violence is "necessary"?
And what you are saying here is that large corporations and wealthy
individuals have the wherewithal to circumvent the "law" when it is
to their advantage, ie, that the common men must be restricted by the
"law", whereas the wealthy are held back only through their own
enlightened self interest.
I'm confused here Wayne. Heinlein's Luna society extends to everyone
the "freedom" that you have just admitted that the elite in our society
have. Are you saying that the accumulation of wealth automatically
confers upon the accumulator the wisdom to exercise judgement despite
"the law"? Or, conversely, are you saying that lack of worth automatically
confers a lack of judgement?
Barry DeCicco
|> In article <4du8k0$9...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>
|> bdec...@sunm4048at.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) wrote:
|> >In article <4dr560$o...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>, dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) writes:
|> >|> In article <4dgh6f$f...@universe.digex.net>
|> >|> nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
|> >
|> ><about 'organized crime'>
|> >
|> >No, fencing would be quite lucrative. There would be a lot
|> >of things in demand (like life support), and someone who
|> >could arrange for them would be rich. Remember, 'rich' depends
|> >on the society. In the RAH 'Loonie' society, 'rich could
|> >mean large living quarters, lots of water and the sort of food
|> >that requires space and energy to produce, and access to other
|> >luxuries (like women). Just because a society is poor, doesn't
|> >mean that people won't steal, and risk their lives.
|> >
|> >And, on the Moon, being able to 'launder' goods would probably be
|> >harder, and therefore, those who could do it would make more.
|> >
|>
|> And thus set themselves up as bigger targets.
|>
|> And theft would be more difficult in a "poor" society since there would
|> be very little to steal. In a "rich" society, such as America, people have
|> to lock up everything, whereas in a poor society, little is locked up,
|> firstly because security costs, and secondly there is very little that
|> needs to be secured.
|>
People do steal in
poor countries. Yes, security costs - life sucks. Some people have to take
their chances. Things to steal - in a rich country, rich goods. In
a poor country, poor goods. You never heard of stealing food? You never
heard of stealing a pair of shoes?
|> In addition, theft in America has not the devestating impact that it has
|> in a poor society. Look at the things that are stolen - cars, bikes, TV's,
|> VCR's, more recently PC's. There is very little that is stolen that would
|> result in starvation. In a poor society, things are different. Most
|> possessions are not in the luxury catagory, but in the necessity catagory.
|> If you steal something from a poor family, you likely condemn them to
|> hunger at the very least.
|>
Yes, some victims may die. Parasites can be unfeeling.
The smart ones, in the long run, try not to kill their victims.
|> >
|
|> >
|> > Are we using the same dictionary? You are talking about blackmail.
|> >(note: extortion is still nice). You don't publicly rat on someone,
|> >if they don't pay you; you leak the information, and let evidence be
|> >discovered - true, this is not a job for amatures, which is why
|> >the pro's tend to do better.
|> >
|>
|> Which presupposes a massive underground where one can attain a professional
|> rating in crime.
|>
Pre-graduate work on Earth, to learn the basic principles;
graduate work on the Moon (warning - the 'washout' rate will be even
higher than on Earth, but, there are always those who will take the risks,
and some will always survive).
|> BTW, it is hard for extortion (the use of threats to induce someone to
|> do something) to exist in a society where everyone is an equal threat
|> to everyone else. This is why I supposed blackmail as the threat.
|>
|> Any other form of extortion (Do this or I'll kill you) implies continuous
|> maintenance of the threat lest the victim turn around and kill the
|> threatener.
|>
|> >
1) Do it anonymously (and voice is a simple thing to take care of.
2) Have enough power to defend yourself. This may get you called
a government.
Barry
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
[deletia]
>I just want society to get into the act, somehow. The reason is
>simple; if i get murdered, I don't want the perpetrator to be allowed
>to get away with it simply because I didn't mount an adequate self
>defense.
Wayne, if you got murdered, I'd say that you would be beyond caring what
happened to the perpetrator - or to anyone else for that matter.
Putting forth what you would want after your death is an implication that
there is a life after death, and that your wants, needs and concerns would
be similar the other side of the grave to what they are here.
Such implications without any hard evidence to back them strike me as
stating that you have knowlege unattainable to anyone else, and therefore,
displays a little bit of conceit.
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Eaton <ma...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>In article <4dgg24$e...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net
>(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>
>> In article <marke-10019...@204.236.25.93>,
>> Mark Eaton <ma...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >The logic behind the 'well armed society' could also be used to prove that
>> >every country should have nuclear weapons. Another term for it: Mutually
>> >Assured Destruction. 'You mess with me, you die'. Apparently the
>> >experiment left a bad taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
>>
>> Seems to have worked--there hasn't been a big war between the major
>> powers once they had nuclear weapons. Coincidence?
>>
>
>...and everyone seems to be breathing a sigh of relief now that the 'major
>powers' are 'holstering' their nuclear weapons. Or would you like another
>Cuban missile crisis? Might spice things up, ehhh?
>
I'm only arguing that Mutual Assured Destruction may really have
discouraged the great powers from going to war with each other. I'm
not saying that it's a pleasant situation, nor that it's got anything
to do with politeness.
I'd rather live with the fear of nuclear war than be anywhere near
an actual conventional war, but this may be a matter of taste.
>And how does 'no big wars' = 'polite'? I see no evidence that nuclear
>weapons made anyone more polite. In fact the cold war was downright nasty
>at times.
Timothy Morris
>True, but that is if you believe that a cop faced with a knife wielding
>junkie 20 feet away is a threat to the life of the cop with his gun drawn.
If the cop has, as you say, his gun drawn, _and_ is functioning at his(her)
peak of alertness, then it's somewhat better than 50/50 that the cop will
"get" the junkie before the junkie gets the cop, but only somewhat. If the
cop's weapon is holstered, they are both likely to be hurt, the degree
depending as much on luck as anything else. I've seen the training videos
of just this situation, and I've been part of an officer street survival
demonstration that raised the hair on the back of my neck. So, I do believe
the knife wielding junkie 20 feet way is a threat to the life of the cop,
gun drawn or not.
Rick Cook
>I understand what you're getting at, where we have "Laws" and "Rules
>to Live By".
And sometimes they are the same thing. Currently we have a society with a
lot of formal, codified law. However in order to have effective, enforced,
law it does not have to be either formal or codified and there does not
have to be a separate enforcement mechanism like courts and police.
"Rules to Live By", I think, doesn't state the case quite strongly enough.
In anthropology they make a distinction between "folkways" (which is what
most people do) and "mores" (which is what you'd better do if you want to
get along in that society.)
Or as the TA in my intro class explained it to us: "If I were to come to
class in a bikini I'd be violating a folkway. If I were to come to class
naked I'd be violating a more." ("That's a more" -- Hmm, there's material
for a nice little filk there.)
What we're talking about here are very strong mores. Mores that can get you
killed if you violate them.
>My point about the law and the ladies lack of desire to see it gone is
>based on some simple principles. What she was saying was quite
>simple:
>A. She could live in a society with rigid legal codes, which allow
>her to depend not only on her own right and ability to defend herself
>against attack, but allow all men the same right from attack from
>women.
>B. She did not want to live in a society without a strict legal code,
>where the "rules to live by" simply stated that if attacked, you were
>entitled to self defense, without society being there to give you
>additional redress should you not be successful.
You left out two other very germane possibilities:
C) She could live in a society without a formal legal code or enforcement
mechanism in which the mores protected citizens from unjustified attack.
Which is what Heinlein was postulating.
D) She could live in a society which has a strict legal code but which does
not effectively protect citizens from attack and in fact severely limits
their ability to defend themselves. Which is what a lot of people would say
we have now.
>This is an interpretation; but that's how I read her comment. As a
>matter of record, lots of folks in this thread have discussed openly
>the merits of dropping strictures in the legal code about murder -
>witness the dueling brouhaha -
Uh forgive me, but sanctioning dueling is not at _all_ the same thing as
'dropping strictures in the legal code about murder'. Every society I am
familar with that allows dueling also had quite rigid restrictions on
murder. Most of them simply didn't define death in a legitimate duel as
murder.
> and she was merely saying that giving
>her the right to kill her assailant would not be desirable, if he was
>freely given the right to kill her, supposedly in self defense.
I'm not at all sure that's what she was saying, but I'm sure she will speak
for herself on that point.
But again, you're confusing lack of a formal legal code with lawlessness.
>She wanted better laws.
>
>I just want society to get into the act, somehow. The reason is
>simple; if i get murdered, I don't want the perpetrator to be allowed
>to get away with it simply because I didn't mount an adequate self
>defense.
And again, who says the perp would? If you were killed in violation of the
'law' in a society such as Heinlien postulates for the moon the chances
your murdered would be punished are probably higher than they are here and
now.
--RC
Mike Van Pelt
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>True, but that is if you believe that a cop faced with a knife wielding
>junkie 20 feet away is a threat to the life of the cop with his gun drawn.
Looks like a prime candidate for the "rubber knife and suction-cup
dart gun" demo -- I'm not sure about the 20 feet, but an assailant
with a knife can close and do you fatal injury before you can shoot
him from a *far* greater distance than seems reasonable to the
uninformed. Even if you have the gun pointed at him with your
finger on the trigger.
--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the | Mike Van Pelt
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to | m...@netcom.com
safety) by menacing it with an endless series of | KE6BVH
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -H. L. Mencken.
Wayne Johnson
>In article <4e708p$t...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
>cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>[deletia]
>>I just want society to get into the act, somehow. The reason is
>>simple; if i get murdered, I don't want the perpetrator to be allowed
>>to get away with it simply because I didn't mount an adequate self
>>defense.
>Wayne, if you got murdered, I'd say that you would be beyond caring what
>happened to the perpetrator - or to anyone else for that matter.
>Putting forth what you would want after your death is an implication that
>there is a life after death, and that your wants, needs and concerns would
>be similar the other side of the grave to what they are here.
>Such implications without any hard evidence to back them strike me as
>stating that you have knowlege unattainable to anyone else, and therefore,
>displays a little bit of conceit.
Well, rest assured - if you do the dirty deed, I'm coming back to
haunt you.
BOO!
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>C) She could live in a society without a formal legal code or enforcement
>mechanism in which the mores protected citizens from unjustified attack.
>Which is what Heinlein was postulating.
Correct.
>D) She could live in a society which has a strict legal code but which does
>not effectively protect citizens from attack and in fact severely limits
>their ability to defend themselves. Which is what a lot of people would say
>we have now.
Me included.
>Uh forgive me, but sanctioning dueling is not at _all_ the same thing as
>'dropping strictures in the legal code about murder'. Every society I am
>familar with that allows dueling also had quite rigid restrictions on
>murder. Most of them simply didn't define death in a legitimate duel as
>murder.
Though it's romantic to visualize a duel as two people eagerly
chomping at the bit to destroy each other, the bitter truth of it is
that many victims of duels were coerced by the - um - (is it folkways,
or mores?) of their cultures to partake of the practice. Dueling was
common here in America as recently as 120 years ago, with many of the
strictures of older times controlling it's conventions; and it was the
John Wesley Hardins of those days that took advantage of the "code"
and turned it into cold-blooded murder, in many cases.
>But again, you're confusing lack of a formal legal code with lawlessness.
Not really. I understand the difference; the lack of "codification"
of laws doesn't mean their absence. It just allows for a type of
flexibility that invites abuse. Of course, the current legal
structure allows abuse as well, as we know from the recent "Trial of
the Century" (a terrible injustice - I think the Harry Thaw trial
takes that title.)
If a person living outside a rigid legal structure seeks redress,
according to cultural standards, I don't consider it lawlessness, and
I would hope that my statements reflected that sentiment.
>>I just want society to get into the act, somehow. The reason is
>>simple; if i get murdered, I don't want the perpetrator to be allowed
>>to get away with it simply because I didn't mount an adequate self
>>defense.
>And again, who says the perp would? If you were killed in violation of the
>'law' in a society such as Heinlien postulates for the moon the chances
>your murdered would be punished are probably higher than they are here and
>now.
Yes, and no...
If the crime were obvious, and a flagrant violation of standards, I'm
sure the perp would get swift justice.
However, without a strong legal code, there would be no dogged Javert
or Holmes to seek out my murderer, over a prolonged period of time;
nor would the Loonies feel a need to devote the extra time and effort
for a long chase for a phantom killer.
And what of a trial? What protects the innocent from wrongful
accusation, or unjust search? Where is the right to interrogate
witnesses, or the means to mount a serious prosecution?
Who had the time for all of that?
Just another chum with a knife in his back...who should have known
better...
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>>Wayne:
>>You lose your competitive advantage when you're in jail.
>>
>As Hitler lost his after the Beer Hall Putzch?
Uh...that's politics, not finance. He wasn't buying a beer hall.
>>Wayne:
>>When violence is necessary to keep a competitive advantage, it is
>>used, even by large corporations and wealthy individuals. They just
>>need to be assured that the violence cannot be traced to them by law
>>enforcement, or that the law is on their side in a physical dispute.
>But necessity was not mentioned in the original hypothesis. And who
>decides whether or not violence is "necessary"?
The bean counters who try to determine their bottom line. If you're
going out of business, or are just greedy, anything can become a
"necessity" for gain; you mentioned the union-bashing yourself.
>And what you are saying here is that large corporations and wealthy
>individuals have the wherewithal to circumvent the "law" when it is
>to their advantage, ie, that the common men must be restricted by the
>"law", whereas the wealthy are held back only through their own
>enlightened self interest.
No no no.
Money confers privelege. Fight your way through court with the
resources of the average family, and soon the entire family is broke.
Do it with the wealth of a major corporation, and it's an option like
any other that requires investment. Which entity do you think is more
reluctant to embark on such a venture?
Take the negative view; the family is broke on it's ass. What have
you to lose? On the other hand, wealth is hard to leave for a jail
cell. Why risk it?
My point is simple. If the stakes are worth it, corporate entities
will use violence, based on need or greed for money - as long as the
risks are acceptable, and not personal in nature. People without that
type of resource have other motivations.
The difference is as simple as knocking someone in the head for his
wallet, and hiring goons to beat Central American fruit pickers when
they organize for higher pay. Either way, using force means getting
more money than you would have had without violence - but the robbery
means jail time.
The goons are just employees, and if they kill someone, it's them who
go to jail and you who look good at the annual stockholder's meeting.
>I'm confused here Wayne. Heinlein's Luna society extends to everyone
>the "freedom" that you have just admitted that the elite in our society
>have. Are you saying that the accumulation of wealth automatically
>confers upon the accumulator the wisdom to exercise judgement despite
>"the law"? Or, conversely, are you saying that lack of worth automatically
>confers a lack of judgement?
NO NO NO. Heinlein's Luna is just the opposite. Every individual
risks his own ass for what he wants, or tries to do; there is no
wealth that allows him to coerce other chums for gelt. This is
frowned upon, to put it mildly. In addition, no one is allowed to
hide behind someone else for his or her dirty deeds.
Wealth doesn't equal wisdom; just power, that's all. Your judgement
can be absolutely horrible, but you can influence events with wealth
far beyond the ability of someone without wealth.
Poverty can also ruin your judgement, though.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Nolan Jarvis
>In article <4e6csi$3...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>True, but that is if you believe that a cop faced with a knife wielding
>>junkie 20 feet away is a threat to the life of the cop with his gun drawn.
>>It so happens that I do not, but that is neither here nor there.
>Looks like a prime candidate for the "rubber knife and suction-cup
>dart gun" demo -- I'm not sure about the 20 feet, but an assailant
>with a knife can close and do you fatal injury before you can shoot
>him from a *far* greater distance than seems reasonable to the
>uninformed. Even if you have the gun pointed at him with your
>finger on the trigger.
FYI, the close-and-stab time from 20 feet is less than 1 second.
Shoot him if he even /looks/ like he's going to charge.
-nolan
Keith Wood
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
[Some of the people (*many* of the people, I think) advocating an armed
[society are using 'armed' in a sense that imples _competence_ with
[weapons, not _possession_ of weapons. That means a whole lot more than
[just being able to shoot a tight group, too - talk to anyone who has
[taught range safety or coached shooting.
"You are no more armed because you have a gun than you are a musician because
you have a violin." -- Colonel Jeff Cooper
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor (Camp Verde AZ)
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
Copyright c 1996 All rights reserved. Distribution by Microsoft Network
constitutes agreement of Microsoft Network to pay Keith Wood $25 per instance
===============================================================
Nolan Jarvis
>As for point one, that is the telling point of Luna society, since the people
>who make the mistakes become quickly dead. Take, for example, the person
>who shot the Japanese student (American story, don't know if it reached you)
>because he thought that the student approaching his house was a threat.
>In Luna society, the results of that mistake would not be a long court case,
>some embarassment, and exonoration.
>The people that make such mistakes are weeded out.
It is indeed the telling point, but the point is that in the
postulated Luna society, you wouldn't be in fear of your life because
a stranger came to your door.
-nolan
Rick Cook
>
>Though it's romantic to visualize a duel as two people eagerly
>chomping at the bit to destroy each other, the bitter truth of it is
>that many victims of duels were coerced by the - um - (is it folkways,
>or mores?) of their cultures to partake of the practice.
Proof? Evidence?
While there was undoubtedly some of that and there were an awful lot of
duels fought by stupid people over silly things (a disproportionate number,
probably), the 'two guys chomping at the bit' is actually pretty accurate.
Most of the cultures that recognized dueling included elaborate formal
mechanisms to try to reconcile the parties short of fighting.
> Dueling was common here in America as recently as 120 years ago,
Not likely. Duels were never common in America, even in the 18th and early
19th centuries.
> with many of the
>strictures of older times controlling it's conventions; and it was the
>John Wesley Hardins of those days that took advantage of the "code"
>and turned it into cold-blooded murder, in many cases.
Excuse me, John Wesley Hardin never fought a duel in his life. Neither did
most of the rest of his ilk. In fact gun fights were almost never the kind
of facedown in the main street you see in the movies. Hardin and his kind
preferred bushwhacking, or the 19th Century equivalent of a driveby
shooting.
You've been watching too many westerns.
--RC
Wayne Johnson
>Excuse me, John Wesley Hardin never fought a duel in his life. Neither did
>most of the rest of his ilk. In fact gun fights were almost never the kind
>of facedown in the main street you see in the movies. Hardin and his kind
>preferred bushwhacking, or the 19th Century equivalent of a driveby
>shooting.
>You've been watching too many westerns.
>--RC
Well, the one I know he avoided was where a fella as nuts as he was
agreed to find a spot, dig a grave, and jump in with Hardin for a
knife fight to the death - unfortunately, Hardin met his end before
the appointment could be made.
Personal challenges were not uncommon; they didn't have the grace of
Napoleonic officers and their seconds, certainly, but resolving
disputes by means of personal combat was common enough for Bat
Masterson and Wyatt Earp to make a living quelling it. Cite? Here's
an easy one: Time-Life Books "The Gunfighters", available at every
public library.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Barry DeCicco
I've read that one, and (I think that it is stated in that specific book)
that the major edge in a gunfight was to already have the gun out, that
there was a strong advantage in seeking out ones opponent when one is
ready, and that this was known and taken advantage of.
Barry
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>>In article <4e708p$t...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
>>cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>
>>[deletia]
>
>>>simple; if i get murdered, I don't want the perpetrator to be allowed
>>>to get away with it simply because I didn't mount an adequate self
>>>defense.
>
>>happened to the perpetrator - or to anyone else for that matter.
>
>>Putting forth what you would want after your death is an implication that
>>there is a life after death, and that your wants, needs and concerns would
>>be similar the other side of the grave to what they are here.
>
>>Such implications without any hard evidence to back them strike me as
>>stating that you have knowlege unattainable to anyone else, and therefore,
>>displays a little bit of conceit.
>
>Well, rest assured - if you do the dirty deed, I'm coming back to
>haunt you.
>
>BOO!
And would this haunting take a form substantially different than that
of our current interplay? :-)
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
[deletia]
>>Uh forgive me, but sanctioning dueling is not at _all_ the same thing as
>>'dropping strictures in the legal code about murder'. Every society I am
>>familar with that allows dueling also had quite rigid restrictions on
>>murder. Most of them simply didn't define death in a legitimate duel as
>>murder.
>
>Though it's romantic to visualize a duel as two people eagerly
>chomping at the bit to destroy each other, the bitter truth of it is
>that many victims of duels were coerced by the - um - (is it folkways,
>or mores?) of their cultures to partake of the practice. Dueling was
>common here in America as recently as 120 years ago, with many of the
>strictures of older times controlling it's conventions; and it was the
>John Wesley Hardins of those days that took advantage of the "code"
>and turned it into cold-blooded murder, in many cases.
But then, is not the problem with the "code" instead of a problem with
duelling itself?
I can see a definate societal interest in insuring that neither of the
participants in a duel are coerced into something that they stand little
chance of succeeding in. But if no coersion exists and both are willing
participants, what is society's interest in forbidding the duel?
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>>>You lose your competitive advantage when you're in jail.
>>>
>
>>As Hitler lost his after the Beer Hall Putzch?
>
>Uh...that's politics, not finance. He wasn't buying a beer hall.
>
Nope, he was attempting to purchase political power and using as his
currency blood and iron.
>>>Wayne:
>>>When violence is necessary to keep a competitive advantage, it is
>>>used, even by large corporations and wealthy individuals. They just
>>>need to be assured that the violence cannot be traced to them by law
>>>enforcement, or that the law is on their side in a physical dispute.
>
>
>>But necessity was not mentioned in the original hypothesis. And who
>>decides whether or not violence is "necessary"?
>
>The bean counters who try to determine their bottom line. If you're
>going out of business, or are just greedy, anything can become a
>"necessity" for gain; you mentioned the union-bashing yourself.
>
Yep, and if it reflected well on the bottom line, it would still go on.
However, clubbing strikers makes for bad press and probable defection
of your customers to other suppliers.
Violence may be *tried* in certain situations, but only when long term
costs are discounted completely. It is not the law that keeps GM from
beating up union members; it is fear of selling fewer cars.
>>And what you are saying here is that large corporations and wealthy
>>individuals have the wherewithal to circumvent the "law" when it is
>>to their advantage, ie, that the common men must be restricted by the
>>"law", whereas the wealthy are held back only through their own
>>enlightened self interest.
>
>No no no.
>
>Money confers privelege. Fight your way through court with the
>resources of the average family, and soon the entire family is broke.
>Do it with the wealth of a major corporation, and it's an option like
>any other that requires investment. Which entity do you think is more
>reluctant to embark on such a venture?
>
>Take the negative view; the family is broke on it's ass. What have
>you to lose? On the other hand, wealth is hard to leave for a jail
>cell. Why risk it?
>
>My point is simple. If the stakes are worth it, corporate entities
>will use violence, based on need or greed for money - as long as the
>risks are acceptable, and not personal in nature. People without that
>type of resource have other motivations.
>
And I see it only as restating my point; that wealth is restained by
self-interest and not the law. It is but one factor in the decision
to use or not to use violence.
But you seem to be saying that a family with nothing has nothing but the
law to restrain them, and this is what I am taking issue with. If you
take only one family with nothing and remove the constraint of law, then
you end up with that which you abhor.
But if you remove the constraint of law from *everybody*, then each
individual is constrained by everybody elses lack of constraint, ie,
if I beat up someone just because I want to, then it is likely that
someone else will attempt to beat me up. Thus, such a possibility must
become a factor in my decision matrix to use or not use violence.
Paradoxical as it may seem, removing the constraints of law does not
remove constraints, even from the poorest.
>The difference is as simple as knocking someone in the head for his
>wallet, and hiring goons to beat Central American fruit pickers when
>they organize for higher pay. Either way, using force means getting
>more money than you would have had without violence - but the robbery
>means jail time.
>
But removing the constraints of law, the robbery is more likely to mean
death.
>The goons are just employees, and if they kill someone, it's them who
>go to jail and you who look good at the annual stockholder's meeting.
>
Until someone gets to thinking about why the goons attacked. Under the
"law", it is more difficult to get at the officers and directors of
the corporation. If there were no law, the officers and directors
risk their lives.
>
>>I'm confused here Wayne. Heinlein's Luna society extends to everyone
>>the "freedom" that you have just admitted that the elite in our society
>>have. Are you saying that the accumulation of wealth automatically
>>confers upon the accumulator the wisdom to exercise judgement despite
>>"the law"? Or, conversely, are you saying that lack of worth automatically
>>confers a lack of judgement?
>
>NO NO NO. Heinlein's Luna is just the opposite. Every individual
>risks his own ass for what he wants, or tries to do; there is no
>wealth that allows him to coerce other chums for gelt. This is
>frowned upon, to put it mildly. In addition, no one is allowed to
>hide behind someone else for his or her dirty deeds.
>
>Wealth doesn't equal wisdom; just power, that's all. Your judgement
>can be absolutely horrible, but you can influence events with wealth
>far beyond the ability of someone without wealth.
>
Only in a society where wealth and power are pragmatically synonyms.
>Poverty can also ruin your judgement, though.
>
Wealth can ruin your judgement.
Bad fish can ruin your judgement.
David MacLean
While it may seem that way to you, let us analyze your above statement.
Let us round "less than 1 second" up to 1 second.
Let us also assume that the knife wielding assailant is an average
weight of 150 lbs.
And let us simplify the math by assuming constant accelleration from
dead stop to whatever velocity attained in the 20 feet and disregarding
opposing forces like friction.
Now, 20 feet = 6.096 metres
150 pounds = 68.0388555 kilograms
The accelleration equation is s = 1/2 * a * t^2.
This means that in the above problem, a = 2 * 6.096 * 1^2 = 12.192 m/s^2
The force equation is f = m * a = 12.192 * 68.0388555 = 414.7648631 newtons
The work equation is w = f * d = 414.7648631 * 6.096 = 2528.406606 joules
The power equation is p = w /t = 2528.406606 watts = 2.528406606 kilowatts
And converting that to the British system, what you are saying is that
the knife wielding assailant can generate more (*less* that a second, you
said) than 3.39064911 *horsepower*.
In addition, in order to cover 20 feet in one second, the assailants
average velocity would have to be 20 feet per second, naturally. But
he was at a dead stop to begin with, and given that the average
velocity (again assuming constant accelleration and lack of friction)
can be calculated by adding the initial velocity (0) to the final velocity
and dividing by two, we can calculate his final velocity as 40 feet per
second, or putting it into terms that most people would be familiar
with, about 27.3 miles per hour.
And let us take into account that you said less than a second, so the
horsepower generated would be greater and the final velocity would be
greater.
I would have to say that if a police officer encountered such an assailant,
instead of arresting him, he'd be better off taking him to the local
office of the Olympic team.
Nolan, your statement smacks of something a basic training instructor would
say to a class of army recruits in the midst of a war. The purpose of
this instruction is *not* to give the recruits the straight facts: it is
to scare them so that they will react by shooting to any close encounter
with the enemy. While this may be desirable on the battlefield, is it
desirable in our own cities?
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>I can see a definate societal interest in insuring that neither of the
>participants in a duel are coerced into something that they stand little
>chance of succeeding in. But if no coersion exists and both are willing
>participants, what is society's interest in forbidding the duel?
Because in real life, it is not sufficient for something to work if it's
been perfectly implemented. It needs to have safeguards.
A duel system is inherently prone to the type of coercion discussed. It may
not be intended; but it'll be there.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Snow?" "It's sort of like white, lumpy, rain." --Gilligan's Island
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>But if you remove the constraint of law from *everybody*, then each
>individual is constrained by everybody elses lack of constraint, ie,
>if I beat up someone just because I want to, then it is likely that
>someone else will attempt to beat me up.
What actually happens is that not everybody is equally willing to beat others
up. Some people will choose to make their main occupation beating others up.
Other people will choose to do other things. If people are freely allowed
to beat others up, the first group will have the advantage.
Keith Wood
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
[Cops go armed, and regular people don't.
There is no basis for this assertion. A great many "regular people" go armed,
even in such criminals' wonderlands as New York City. Even Sarah Brady owns
handguns (and the let's James play with them, according to their friends).
[The number of
[cops shooting non-cops over the reverse will end up being inflated by the
[greater rate at which cops carry weapons--probably at least an order of
[magnitude.
The problem with THIS assertion is the fact that 52% of all legally justifiable
shootings are non-police related. This is, of course, because cops don't tend
to be targetted for muggings, rape, or other crimes where the criminals may be
shot.
Graydon
: Nolan, your statement smacks of something a basic training instructor would
: say to a class of army recruits in the midst of a war. The purpose of
: this instruction is *not* to give the recruits the straight facts: it is
: to scare them so that they will react by shooting to any close encounter
: with the enemy. While this may be desirable on the battlefield, is it
: desirable in our own cities?
Let me attempt to put this into terms less subject to physical analysis;
inside some distance (taught to me as 8 meters; the lowest number I've
seen is 22 feet, typical American quote appears to be 25 feet), the
person who moves first wins.
This is true; I've been through the rubber-knife and dart gun demos, and
the various 'block the rubber knife' drills, and the two-dart-guns
drills, and, well, yes, inside eight meters, what they do has happened by
the time you've managed to react to it if you reaction involves your
brain in any way, and often even if it doesn't.
Heinlein knew this, unlike many sf authors - Colin Campbell's reaction to
having a gun pointed at him at close range in :The Cat Who Walks Through
Walls: is the first example that comes to mind.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <11a7cc$f372...@news.twave.net>
>nola...@twave.net (Nolan Jarvis) wrote:
>>FYI, the close-and-stab time from 20 feet is less than 1 second.
>>Shoot him if he even /looks/ like he's going to charge.
>
>While it may seem that way to you, let us analyze your above statement.
>
>Let us round "less than 1 second" up to 1 second.
>Let us also assume that the knife wielding assailant is an average
>weight of 150 lbs.
>And let us simplify the math by assuming constant accelleration from
>dead stop to whatever velocity attained in the 20 feet and disregarding
>opposing forces like friction.
>
>Now, 20 feet = 6.096 metres
>150 pounds = 68.0388555 kilograms
>
>The accelleration equation is s = 1/2 * a * t^2.
>This means that in the above problem, a = 2 * 6.096 * 1^2 = 12.192 m/s^2
Which is only slightly above 1g. That is, anybody capable of walking
up a flight of stairs can generate that much power.
>In addition, in order to cover 20 feet in one second, the assailants
>average velocity would have to be 20 feet per second, naturally.
You're also neglecting the fact that he doesn't have to move quite the
full 20 feet; if he moves 17 feet closer to you, the knife at the end
of his arm will reach you.
> But
>he was at a dead stop to begin with, and given that the average
>velocity (again assuming constant accelleration and lack of friction)
>can be calculated by adding the initial velocity (0) to the final velocity
>and dividing by two, we can calculate his final velocity as 40 feet per
>second, or putting it into terms that most people would be familiar
>with, about 27.3 miles per hour.
However, if he accelerated faster at the beginning, he wouldn't need
to reach that high a speed.
>Nolan, your statement smacks of something a basic training instructor would
>say to a class of army recruits in the midst of a war.
Have you ever seen such a demo? I've had a little martial arts
training, and I can well believe the 1 second time.
Seth
David MacLean
Never said they didn't. However, theft in poor countries is taken as
much more serious than in rich countries. Sure, you're angry if someone
steals your car, but not angry enough to personally track the thiefs
and exact your revenge. Compare that to the reaction in a poor nation to
the theft of a lamb.
>Yes, security costs - life sucks. Some people have to take
>their chances. Things to steal - in a rich country, rich goods. In
>a poor country, poor goods. You never heard of stealing food? You never
>heard of stealing a pair of shoes?
>
Again, you misunderstand. If I steal food in a rich country, it is unlikely
that I cause extreme sufferring. If I steal it in a poor country, that
could mean hunger for children. Thus, theft that would rate a suspended
sentence in the U.S. might rate capital punishment in Rwanda.
>
>|> In addition, theft in America has not the devestating impact that it has
>|> in a poor society. Look at the things that are stolen - cars, bikes, TV's,
>|> VCR's, more recently PC's. There is very little that is stolen that would
>|> result in starvation. In a poor society, things are different. Most
>|> possessions are not in the luxury catagory, but in the necessity catagory.
>|> If you steal something from a poor family, you likely condemn them to
>|> hunger at the very least.
>|>
>
>Yes, some victims may die. Parasites can be unfeeling.
>The smart ones, in the long run, try not to kill their victims.
>
The smart ones don't get caught or even let suspicion fall on them.
This is decidedly not the case with most thiefs.
>|> > Are we using the same dictionary? You are talking about blackmail.
>|> >(note: extortion is still nice). You don't publicly rat on someone,
>|> >if they don't pay you; you leak the information, and let evidence be
>|> >discovered - true, this is not a job for amatures, which is why
>|> >the pro's tend to do better.
>|> >
>|>
>|> Which presupposes a massive underground where one can attain a professional
>|> rating in crime.
>|>
>
>Pre-graduate work on Earth, to learn the basic principles;
>graduate work on the Moon (warning - the 'washout' rate will be even
>higher than on Earth, but, there are always those who will take the risks,
>and some will always survive).
>
Based on what? On earth, though you can get an education in crime, the
penalties, if caught, are not even in the same ballpark as those on Luna.
And indeed, if such a "smart" criminal was transported to Luna, and survived
the new chum stage, he would find that he could accumulate all that he wants
without resort to frowned upon acts such as theft, murder, or extortion.
There are no educational barriers: you want to be a doctor, hang out your
shingle.
No familial barriers: if you can charm a lady from a prominent family,
you're in.
No legal boundaries: you want to set up a factory in your cubic, your only
restriction is that of the annoying the neighbours so much that they kill you;
no zoning laws.
Faced with a choice between accumulating wealth and having to constantly
watch your back, and accumulating the same wealth as a trusted member of
society, what would this "smart" crook do?
>|> BTW, it is hard for extortion (the use of threats to induce someone to
>|> do something) to exist in a society where everyone is an equal threat
>|> to everyone else. This is why I supposed blackmail as the threat.
>|>
>|> Any other form of extortion (Do this or I'll kill you) implies continuous
>|> maintenance of the threat lest the victim turn around and kill the
>|> threatener.
>|>
>|> >
>
>1) Do it anonymously (and voice is a simple thing to take care of.
>
An anonymous threat against an armed person in an armed society? Are you
sure this would work?
>2) Have enough power to defend yourself. This may get you called
> a government.
And how, Barry, in Luna society do you accumulate that kind of power?
David MacLean
Which is the point that I raised originally, ie, the Luna society postulated
would have less fear than contemporary society.
David MacLean
bdec...@sunm4048as.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) wrote:
>Everyone is just proposing screening mechanisms - things which
>cut down on the number of gang members. The survivors would be
>the smartest ones - there is always a supply of stupid people
>to be object lessons for the ones who are intelligent.
>
But those "smart" ones are only in gangs because they have been denied
opportunity in the "legitimate" world. But this is not the case in
Luna society.
David MacLean
tmo...@BIX.com (Timothy Morris) wrote:
>David MacLean wrote:
>>True, but that is if you believe that a cop faced with a knife wielding
>>junkie 20 feet away is a threat to the life of the cop with his gun drawn.
>
>peak of alertness, then it's somewhat better than 50/50 that the cop will
>"get" the junkie before the junkie gets the cop, but only somewhat. If the
>cop's weapon is holstered, they are both likely to be hurt, the degree
>depending as much on luck as anything else. I've seen the training videos
>of just this situation, and I've been part of an officer street survival
>demonstration that raised the hair on the back of my neck. So, I do believe
>the knife wielding junkie 20 feet way is a threat to the life of the cop,
>gun drawn or not.
Only if all paths of retreat are cut off. Training videos and officer
street survival demonstrations are meant to raise the hair on the back of
your neck. However, they add one thing not present in the situations that
they are designed to simulate; predetermined intent to attack.
It is highly unlikely that a junkie on the street who pulls a blade on
a police officer has any immediate intent to attack the officer. What
he wants to do is get away.
Unfortunately, the cop doesn't think of letting him, or even appearing to
let him. What *should* be happening is defusing the situation. What does
happen in the cases in which either the junkie or officer get hurt or
killed is that the spirit of John Wayne inhabits the officer's body.
David MacLean
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>: Nolan, your statement smacks of something a basic training instructor would
>: say to a class of army recruits in the midst of a war. The purpose of
>: this instruction is *not* to give the recruits the straight facts: it is
>: to scare them so that they will react by shooting to any close encounter
>: with the enemy. While this may be desirable on the battlefield, is it
>: desirable in our own cities?
>
>Let me attempt to put this into terms less subject to physical analysis;
>inside some distance (taught to me as 8 meters; the lowest number I've
>seen is 22 feet, typical American quote appears to be 25 feet), the
>person who moves first wins.
>
Wins what? If winning means you stay alive (or unhurt) and the other
doesn't, then perhaps this is so. However, who made it a rule that
at least one had to be hurt or killed. Why is it that in the rubber
knife and suction dart gun scenario, the emphasis for the gun holder
is to fire instead of *avoiding the knife*?
It seems to me that in every like encounter, ie, a cop against a knife
wielder, the predetermined rules as outlined to the cop is that someone
has to get hurt so it may as well be him and not you.
Perhaps the correct thing to do, instead of facing down, is backing off.
No, *not* running away in panic -- a strategic retreat.
If cops are trained in aggressive gunplay in situations which may *or may
not* call for it, then there are going to be a hell of a lot more people
killed by cops than cops killed by other people, and, surprise, surprise,
this is the case.
>This is true; I've been through the rubber-knife and dart gun demos, and
>the various 'block the rubber knife' drills, and the two-dart-guns
>drills, and, well, yes, inside eight meters, what they do has happened by
>the time you've managed to react to it if you reaction involves your
>brain in any way, and often even if it doesn't.
>
>Heinlein knew this, unlike many sf authors - Colin Campbell's reaction to
>having a gun pointed at him at close range in :The Cat Who Walks Through
>Walls: is the first example that comes to mind.
>
But Colin Campbell had *military* training. On the battlefield, the
response to a threat (or even a perceived threat) is deadly force, and
on the battlefield, this is appropriate.
All that I am asking is, "is training that dictates a deadly response to a
perceived threat the correct training for police officers?"
I am not asking if the training is appropriate for the assumptions about
the situations that cops are likely to get into; I am questioning the
assumptions being made. Is it truly "him or me; kill or be killed"?
Or is the assumption that the cops presense escalates the tension in
an already tense situation one that should be looked at?
And please! I am quite aware that one can find examples to back up any
point of view, so telling me about a "nice" cop who tried to talk a junkie
down and ended up dead is not relevant to the discussion.
I am asking whether a retreat from the military battlefield approach to
police training into a psychological model modified by what is known
popularly as the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle (the observer affects
the observation) could reduce the total number of cop related homocides,
ie, cops killed by others, and others killed by cops. Let's leave
individual cases out of it in favor of a general approach.
David MacLean
arro...@peregrine.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4ee464$9...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>But if you remove the constraint of law from *everybody*, then each
>>individual is constrained by everybody elses lack of constraint, ie,
>>if I beat up someone just because I want to, then it is likely that
>>someone else will attempt to beat me up.
>
>up. Some people will choose to make their main occupation beating others up.
>Other people will choose to do other things. If people are freely allowed
>to beat others up, the first group will have the advantage.
Not so, Ken. Your presumption is that some people are sheep and some people
are wolves. While I would agree with you on that for contemporary societies,
the proportion of "sheep" in Luna society has been, necessarily, drastically
reduced.
That does not mean to say that all people will go around beating people up.
That just means that most people within that society are unlikely to tolerate
those people that you fear, ie, the ones that choose to make their main
occupation beating others up.
--
Wayne Johnson
>In article <4ea784$i...@cloner3.netcom.com>
>cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>>Well, rest assured - if you do the dirty deed, I'm coming back to
>>haunt you.
>>
>>BOO!
>And would this haunting take a form substantially different than that
>of our current interplay? :-)
Well, maybe...what I'll do is just jump into every conversation you're
in, and scare everybody away.
You'll know it's me. I'll have "anon.penet.fi" stamped on my shroud,
and be carrying Rick Cook's head under my arm.
My head will be missing, of course.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Barry DeCicco
|> In article <11a7cc$1053...@news.twave.net>
|> nola...@twave.net (Nolan Jarvis) wrote:
|> >dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
|> >
|> >
|> >>As for point one, that is the telling point of Luna society, since the people
|> >>who make the mistakes become quickly dead. Take, for example, the person
|> >>who shot the Japanese student (American story, don't know if it reached you)
|> >>because he thought that the student approaching his house was a threat.
|> >
|> >>In Luna society, the results of that mistake would not be a long court case,
|> >>some embarassment, and exonoration.
|> >
|> >>The people that make such mistakes are weeded out.
No - the local people thought that he was totally justified.
They sure as hell wouldn't weed him out - he was one of them,
who shot a stanger, under "justifiable" circumstances.
That incident argues the other way.
Barry
Graydon
: Wins what? If winning means you stay alive (or unhurt) and the other
: doesn't, then perhaps this is so. However, who made it a rule that
: at least one had to be hurt or killed. Why is it that in the rubber
: knife and suction dart gun scenario, the emphasis for the gun holder
: is to fire instead of *avoiding the knife*?
Because it's incredibly hard to do?
Bare hand knife blocks are difficult and risky; extremely good martial
artists advise running if faced with that situation for many sound reasons.
(Yes, there are things you can do if you *can't* run, but they're ugly
and you're hoping that you won't die or get nerve and/or tendon damage, not
that you won't get hurt.)
Nightstick vs knife is better, but a nightstick is too short and doesn't
have much in the way of a guard; it's still not any kind of odds. Riot
batons are pretty decent for this, but not commonly carried.
You can't run backwards faster than they can run forwards, especially if
you're a cop in a flak vest and equipment belt.
: >Heinlein knew this, unlike many sf authors - Colin Campbell's reaction to
: >having a gun pointed at him at close range in :The Cat Who Walks Through
: >Walls: is the first example that comes to mind.
: But Colin Campbell had *military* training. On the battlefield, the
: response to a threat (or even a perceived threat) is deadly force, and
: on the battlefield, this is appropriate.
Zero-damage disarms aren't commonly military training, not universially it
isn't, and not always, as far as battlefields go, it isn't and that's why
it doesn't always happen. Also note that Colin didn't do the fellow with
the gun any harm anywhere but the ego.
: All that I am asking is, "is training that dictates a deadly response to a
: perceived threat the correct training for police officers?"
Of course not.
The constabularly are properly required to summon you to surrender before
shooting you in almost all circumstances. (If you are actively engaged
in shooting up a burger joint, well, I'm inclined to be lenient - the
time saved probably translates into lives saved.) If you *don't*
surrender, *and* you are armed, *and* you are presenting a threatening
posture, I'd say they were entirely justfied in shooting. (This is about
as military as Betty Crocker, by the way.)
If the rules of engagment say 'don't shoot the runners', all someone has
to do to get away is to toss their weapon and run. I'd much rather social
rules that say 'they've got to summon you to surrender, and you've *got*
to stop.' No-knock warrants and shooting without a challenge are murder
and members of the constabulary engaging in such practices should be tried
(and if guilty, executed) for murder. But if you're properly summoned to
surrender, you damn well stop and sort it out with the nice officer.
And yes, there are all sorts of problems with various bits of social
opinion leaking in, but those are not solved by complicating the ROE;
complex ROE result in people under stress just winging it. This is bad.
Rick Cook
>
>Well, the one I know he avoided was where a fella as nuts as he was
>agreed to find a spot, dig a grave, and jump in with Hardin for a
>knife fight to the death - unfortunately, Hardin met his end before
>the appointment could be made.
That's hardly a duel Wayne.
>Personal challenges were not uncommon;
Actually they were extremely uncommon. Even among 'gunfighters' who were a
species so rare as to be virtually nonexistant.
If you'd like a cite: Consider "Tombstone" by John Meyers Meyers, who was a
well-known Western historian.
--RC
Rick Cook
>I've read that one, and (I think that it is stated in that specific book)
>that the major edge in a gunfight was to already have the gun out, that
>there was a strong advantage in seeking out ones opponent when one is
>ready, and that this was known and taken advantage of.
>
for someone when they were ready and he wasn't and like as not shoot him
on sight.
For classic examples of a real western gunfight, look at Pat Garrett and
Billy The Kid and the Gunfight At The OK Corral.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>It is highly unlikely that a junkie on the street who pulls a blade on
>a police officer has any immediate intent to attack the officer. What
>he wants to do is get away.
>
thinking ability.
So yes, some of them will try to take the cop out.
--RC
Rick Cook
>
>You'll know it's me. I'll have "anon.penet.fi" stamped on my shroud,
>and be carrying Rick Cook's head under my arm.
>
you know. :-)
--RC
Rick Cook
>What actually happens is that not everybody is equally willing to beat
>others up. Some people will choose to make their main occupation beating
>others up. Other people will choose to do other things. If people are
freely >allowed to beat others up, the first group will have the advantage.
As has been pointed out, people are not allowed to freely beat other up.
There are definite costs incurred in doing so, up to and including
elimination.
Again, don't mistake lack of a formal legal code with designated
enforcement authority with lack of law.
--RC
Wayne Johnson
>--RC
Well, somebody's head has to do the talking, since mine will be gone.
I'll just have to rig up a sling, or something, and trust your silver
tongue to be up to the action!
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>
>>Well, the one I know he avoided was where a fella as nuts as he was
>>agreed to find a spot, dig a grave, and jump in with Hardin for a
>>knife fight to the death - unfortunately, Hardin met his end before
>>the appointment could be made.
>That's hardly a duel Wayne.
What would you call it? It was a personal challenge, with an
appointed place and time, with the object being personal combat. If
that isn't a duel, what is it?
>>Personal challenges were not uncommon;
>Actually they were extremely uncommon. Even among 'gunfighters' who were a
>species so rare as to be virtually nonexistant.
>If you'd like a cite: Consider "Tombstone" by John Meyers Meyers, who was a
>well-known Western historian.
I'll look it up. The old West was a fascinating period.
My point about personal challenges doesn't mean the formal Napoleonic
duel, with formal seconds, etc. The point I'm making is that a
grievance was settled with personal combat very often, with both
parties agreeing that this was the method with which the grievance
would be solved.
Hot tempers dictated the action. Two men in an argument over faro (a
card game, to you greenhorns) could of course take their problem to
court, for civil or criminal action. Instead, it was socially
acceptable to allow the argument to be settled with pistols. Note
that certain weapons were not allowed to be used in this type of
incident. "Hide-out" guns (derringers), shotguns, and hidden
accomplices were not encouraged, nor was "getting the drop on a man" -
in other words, not giving him a chance to fight back - an acceptable
situation. All were grounds for indictment for murder.
The horrific death toll of shootings in places like Tombstone, and
other Western boom towns, was usually the result of people defying
these codes, so I can agree that formal duels were not the reason for
all of the killing. But when a fair fight did occur, no one objected,
and the law did not intervene.
You mentioned in another post the incident of the fight between Pat
Garrett and Billy Antrim, which is undocumented save from Garrett's
testimony, and the OK Corral encounter, which involved several people,
as the frontier equivalent of duels. Both involved sworn law
enforcement officers, which eliminates dueling from their actions.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Nolan Jarvis
>In article <11a7cc$f372...@news.twave.net>
>nola...@twave.net (Nolan Jarvis) wrote:
>>m...@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4e6csi$3...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>True, but that is if you believe that a cop faced with a knife wielding
>>>>junkie 20 feet away is a threat to the life of the cop with his gun drawn.
>>>>It so happens that I do not, but that is neither here nor there.
>>
>>>Looks like a prime candidate for the "rubber knife and suction-cup
>>>dart gun" demo -- I'm not sure about the 20 feet, but an assailant
>>>with a knife can close and do you fatal injury before you can shoot
>>>him from a *far* greater distance than seems reasonable to the
>>>uninformed. Even if you have the gun pointed at him with your
>>>finger on the trigger.
>>
>>FYI, the close-and-stab time from 20 feet is less than 1 second.
>>
>>Shoot him if he even /looks/ like he's going to charge.
>>
>While it may seem that way to you, let us analyze your above statement.
>Let us round "less than 1 second" up to 1 second.
>Let us also assume that the knife wielding assailant is an average
>weight of 150 lbs.
>And let us simplify the math by assuming constant accelleration from
>dead stop to whatever velocity attained in the 20 feet and disregarding
>opposing forces like friction.
>Now, 20 feet = 6.096 metres
>150 pounds = 68.0388555 kilograms
>The accelleration equation is s = 1/2 * a * t^2.
>This means that in the above problem, a = 2 * 6.096 * 1^2 = 12.192 m/s^2
>The force equation is f = m * a = 12.192 * 68.0388555 = 414.7648631 newtons
>The work equation is w = f * d = 414.7648631 * 6.096 = 2528.406606 joules
>The power equation is p = w /t = 2528.406606 watts = 2.528406606 kilowatts
>And converting that to the British system, what you are saying is that
>the knife wielding assailant can generate more (*less* that a second, you
>said) than 3.39064911 *horsepower*.
>In addition, in order to cover 20 feet in one second, the assailants
>average velocity would have to be 20 feet per second, naturally. But
>he was at a dead stop to begin with, and given that the average
>velocity (again assuming constant accelleration and lack of friction)
>can be calculated by adding the initial velocity (0) to the final velocity
>and dividing by two, we can calculate his final velocity as 40 feet per
>second, or putting it into terms that most people would be familiar
>with, about 27.3 miles per hour.
>And let us take into account that you said less than a second, so the
>horsepower generated would be greater and the final velocity would be
>greater.
>I would have to say that if a police officer encountered such an assailant,
>instead of arresting him, he'd be better off taking him to the local
>office of the Olympic team.
>Nolan, your statement smacks of something a basic training instructor would
>say to a class of army recruits in the midst of a war. The purpose of
>this instruction is *not* to give the recruits the straight facts: it is
>to scare them so that they will react by shooting to any close encounter
>with the enemy. While this may be desirable on the battlefield, is it
>desirable in our own cities?
>--
>***************************************************************************
>David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
>***************************************************************************
Do trained athletes routinely run 40 yards in less than 5 seconds?
Does this work out to 24 feet per second?
Can a (probably) youthful, reasonably healthy, and (again probably)
adrenaline-charged attacker cover the distance in the time required?
[shrug]
Theory and formulae are well and good, but frequently have little
relationship to the real world. Instead of checking the math, why not
scrounge up a rubber knife and a stopwatch and generate empirical
data? Try it yourself; I think you'll be surprised.
-nolan
Nancy Lebovitz
Lisa Aaronson <li...@interport.net> wrote:
>In article <4e8q5u$q...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> dou...@fiddle.esd.sgi.com (Doug O'Morain) writes:
>
>>In <4e72em$5...@universe.digex.net> nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz)
>>writes:
>
>>>I'm adding soc.culture.jewish to this thread.
>
>>Is this the first time the Floating Heinlein Flamewar has drifted
>>onto soc.cuture.jewish?
>
>Why crosspost to SCJ? Last I saw, it was about Heinlein getting justifiably
>angry at Panshin for reading his mail.
>
Since then, the topic has drifted to Israeli, Jewish, and Arabic styles
of arguing--why not bring in people who know more about it? Maybe it
should be cross-posted to an arab group or two, and out of the sf
areas.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Antony J. Shepherd (Dop)
rec.arts.sf.heinlein.anecdote.rambling.bollocks?
Antony J. "Doppelganger" Shepherd - d...@carcosa.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sig supports Simo for TAFF - I don't care myself, but this sig does.
Barry DeCicco
|> Wayne Johnson wrote:
|> >
|> >Well, the one I know he avoided was where a fella as nuts as he was
|> >agreed to find a spot, dig a grave, and jump in with Hardin for a
|> >knife fight to the death - unfortunately, Hardin met his end before
|> >the appointment could be made.
|>
|> That's hardly a duel Wayne.
|>
Wrong - it is clearly a duel. It is, however, a more extreme set-up
than most duels, where there might be a decent chance of survival for
at least one participant, maybe even for both, depending on the customary
rules for duels.
Barry
David MacLean
nola...@twave.net (Nolan Jarvis) wrote:
[deletia]
>Do trained athletes routinely run 40 yards in less than 5 seconds?
By the same calculations, this works out to a trained athlete generating
1.953 horsepower, as opposed to a junkie generating 3.39 horsepower.
>
>Does this work out to 24 feet per second?
>
Which works out to 16.4 mph, a far cry from the junky's 27.3 mph.
>Can a (probably) youthful, reasonably healthy,
A junky? Reasonably healthy? Only if your standards of "reasonable"
health are exceedingly low.
>and (again probably)
>adrenaline-charged attacker cover the distance in the time required?
>
And the athlete has no adrelaline pumping?
>[shrug]
>
>Theory and formulae are well and good, but frequently have little
>relationship to the real world. Instead of checking the math, why not
>scrounge up a rubber knife and a stopwatch and generate empirical
>data? Try it yourself; I think you'll be surprised.
Tried it myself. And I am not surprised at the "published" results.
The time is measured by stop watch, operated by an outside observer.
The problem with this is that the stopwatch time is considered "the"
time. No allowance is made for the *observers* reaction time. In
the time it takes for the observer to note that the "attacker" has
started to move and to start the stopwatch, a man with a gun could
have pulled the trigger. Additionally, a suction cup dart hardly
slows the attacker down; momentum alone will drive the attacker forward.
Yes, it all happens "quickly", but a plastic dart gun is not a reasonable
substitute for a 9mm if you want to demonstrate what would "really" happen,
for a bullet, kills, or if off centre, imposes torque, spinning the victim.
If you are so sure of the results, then instead of the rubber knife and
dart gun routine, let's make it a real knife and a real gun - you take
the knife, I'll take the gun. 20 feet separation. You can start when ready.
BTW, when I was involved in the scenario (military, not police), one of
the things that I tried is sideways motion away from the blade, falling
and extending the leg. The only time I tried it, the attacker went flying
and I shot him at my leisure. I can still remember the drill instructor
screaming, "You can't do that!". It made a mockery of what they were
trying to instruct. However, at the time, I did not know exactly what
they were instructing. It was not how to take on a charging attacker;
it was teaching "fear" of the charging attacker and instilling a "kill"
reflex response.
Barry DeCicco
|> Barry DeCicco wrote:
|> >
|> >What the original person was tyring to say (IMO) was that most of
|> >the people who casually talk about vigilanteism/mob violence
|> >being a socially useful thing are those who assume that they will
|> >not be the target - that, if a mob comes and kills them, they would
|> >be punished.
|>
|> As it happens the the original person is incorrect, if that is indeed what
|> she means.
|>
|> --RC
No, if you follow the opinions expressed in the threads (A Heinlein Anecdote,
Checks to Thuggery on Luna, etc), that is their basic assumption.
It is generally unspoken, but gradually leaks out.
Barry
Ken Arromdee
>[Cops go armed, and regular people don't.
>There is no basis for this assertion. A great many "regular people" go armed,
>even in such criminals' wonderlands as New York City. Even Sarah Brady owns
>handguns (and the let's James play with them, according to their friends).
What is relevant here is the _proportions_, not the absolute numbers. If
a greater _ratio_ of cops go armed than regular citizens, then there will
be more citizens killed by cops than the reverse. The fact that the absolute
number of armed citizens is greater than the absolute number of armed
policemen is not relevant.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Snow?" "It's sort of like white, lumpy, rain." --Gilligan's Island
David MacLean
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>: Wins what? If winning means you stay alive (or unhurt) and the other
>: doesn't, then perhaps this is so. However, who made it a rule that
>: at least one had to be hurt or killed. Why is it that in the rubber
>: knife and suction dart gun scenario, the emphasis for the gun holder
>: is to fire instead of *avoiding the knife*?
>
>Because it's incredibly hard to do?
Only if you refuse to accept retreat as an option.
And especially when you have split motivation, ie, the motivation to
defend yourself with the motivation to "get" the guy.
>
>Bare hand knife blocks are difficult and risky; extremely good martial
>artists advise running if faced with that situation for many sound reasons.
>(Yes, there are things you can do if you *can't* run, but they're ugly
>and you're hoping that you won't die or get nerve and/or tendon damage, not
>that you won't get hurt.)
>
Actually, the problem is that running is never considered an option.
>Nightstick vs knife is better, but a nightstick is too short and doesn't
>have much in the way of a guard; it's still not any kind of odds. Riot
>batons are pretty decent for this, but not commonly carried.
>
>You can't run backwards faster than they can run forwards, especially if
>you're a cop in a flak vest and equipment belt.
>
But you can dodge to the side.
>: >Heinlein knew this, unlike many sf authors - Colin Campbell's reaction to
>: >having a gun pointed at him at close range in :The Cat Who Walks Through
>: >Walls: is the first example that comes to mind.
>
>: But Colin Campbell had *military* training. On the battlefield, the
>: response to a threat (or even a perceived threat) is deadly force, and
>: on the battlefield, this is appropriate.
>
>Zero-damage disarms aren't commonly military training, not universially it
>isn't, and not always, as far as battlefields go, it isn't and that's why
>it doesn't always happen. Also note that Colin didn't do the fellow with
>the gun any harm anywhere but the ego.
>
>: All that I am asking is, "is training that dictates a deadly response to a
>: perceived threat the correct training for police officers?"
>
>Of course not.
>
>The constabularly are properly required to summon you to surrender before
>shooting you in almost all circumstances. (If you are actively engaged
>in shooting up a burger joint, well, I'm inclined to be lenient - the
>time saved probably translates into lives saved.) If you *don't*
>surrender, *and* you are armed, *and* you are presenting a threatening
>posture, I'd say they were entirely justfied in shooting. (This is about
>as military as Betty Crocker, by the way.)
>
Since when has assuming a threatening posture been a capital offence?
This is my point. Given the knife wielding junkie, if he is finally arrested
without doing any harm, he'd be charged with assaulting a police officer
and resisting arrest. What would he get? 10 years? The crimes hardly
warrant the death penalty.
If the junkie had the knife to the throat of somebody, there is an immediate
threat to life, but if it's just the cop and the junkie?
>If the rules of engagment say 'don't shoot the runners', all someone has
>to do to get away is to toss their weapon and run. I'd much rather social
>rules that say 'they've got to summon you to surrender, and you've *got*
>to stop.'
If the rules of engagement say 'don't shoot the runners', then there is
no reason for the perpetrator NOT to drop their weapon and run - and this
leads to fewer casualties on both sides, cops and non-cops. It would
also lead to recruiting based on speed rather than strength but that's
an administrative detail.
>No-knock warrants and shooting without a challenge are murder
>and members of the constabulary engaging in such practices should be tried
>(and if guilty, executed) for murder. But if you're properly summoned to
>surrender, you damn well stop and sort it out with the nice officer.
>
Presuming, of course, that he/she *is* "the nice officer". It works both
ways. In order for your rule to work, there *must* be some assurance that
the officer who summons you to surrender is, in fact, "moral". Your ideal
must be counterbalanced with the ideal police officer, fair, unbiased,
and "correct". And I bet it would be easier to get your ideal implemented
as a social more if you implement my ideal, rather than insisting on your
ideal but not giving strict attention to mine.
>And yes, there are all sorts of problems with various bits of social
>opinion leaking in, but those are not solved by complicating the ROE;
>complex ROE result in people under stress just winging it. This is bad.
>
No argument there. Simple rules of engagement are best, which leaves a lot
to the judgement of the officer involved. But that judgement is tempered
by training. If the training is geared towards the unstated but very
real goal that the officer must at all costs get his man immediately,
then is that good for society?
David MacLean
arro...@peregrine.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4ee460$9...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>I can see a definate societal interest in insuring that neither of the
>>participants in a duel are coerced into something that they stand little
>>chance of succeeding in. But if no coersion exists and both are willing
>>participants, what is society's interest in forbidding the duel?
>
>Because in real life, it is not sufficient for something to work if it's
>been perfectly implemented. It needs to have safeguards.
>
>A duel system is inherently prone to the type of coercion discussed. It may
>not be intended; but it'll be there.
Safeguards are just what I have been talking about.
But I get the impression that for you, there will *never* be adequate
safeguards. That's okay, since while there may not be adequate safeguards
for you, their may well be safeguards adequate for society.
Consider this, however. There are some disputes that lead to death. No
law will prevent this. However, if duels are allowed, such a dispute is
far more likely to result in resolution, and if it gets to the duel,
both are at equal risk, which to me, is better than a victim being shot
in the back of the head.
David MacLean
The operative words, Rick, were "immediate intent". The immediate intent
of the junkie is just to get away. However, if he feels that escape is
impossible, then, and *only* then will his intent change to that of harm.
There is no doubt that on occasion, one will find that the junkie intends
to harm, but these cases, when compared with the ones where the intent is
escape, will be extremely rare.
My thinking is that the police training unintentionally makes the officer
escalate the situation to the point where the junkie believes that there
is no escape. While I agree that any harm that results can be blamed
mainly on the junkie wielding the knife, I cannot agree that *all* the
responsibility can be laid on his shoulders. If training were directed
more towards eliminating the feeling in the perpetrator that he has
nothing to lose, loss of life might be reduced. Whether that is a worth-
while goal is subject to debate. However, in a society that claims to
value human life, resistance to thinking about changes that will reduce
deaths seems strange.
David MacLean
rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
>Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>
>>and be carrying Rick Cook's head under my arm.
>>
>Uh, are you sure my head will fit under your arm Wayne? It's kinda swollen,
>you know. :-)
>
Ah gee, Rick. I was just going to let Wayne have the last word on this one,
but your comment about the size of your head causes me to ask whether it
is your head that is swollen, or that it only appears swollen in comparison
to the other shrunken heads? :-)
Ken Arromdee
Wayne Johnson <cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The horrific death toll of shootings in places like Tombstone, and
>other Western boom towns, was usually the result of people defying
>these codes, so I can agree that formal duels were not the reason for
>all of the killing. But when a fair fight did occur, no one objected,
>and the law did not intervene.
What horrific death toll? Have you got a number and a cite?
David MacLean
Whether the local people thought that he was totally justified or
totally wrong depended on which news service you listened to. Certainly
there were some that were behind him, and the American press tended to
play those up with "from the street" interviews. However, there
were "from the street" interviews showing the other side, with total
revulsion for what he had done.
Such a situation would lead to a vendetta in the transition period, with
many hot heads dying.
But in the Luna as described society, such a situation would not crop up,
since the fear factor disappears.
Timothy Morris
adrenaline rush and the effect of _lunging_, among other.
Look, I've been there, I've seen the example done, and I've been in the
demo. _I_ played the cop, and I did get a shot off, but I also got hit,
pretty hard, with the rubber knife. Some people don't even get the shot off
before the knifeman gets to them.
Graydon
: >: is to fire instead of *avoiding the knife*?
: >Because it's incredibly hard to do?
: Only if you refuse to accept retreat as an option.
As noted below, they can run faster forward than you can backward.
Turning around takes time. It is not advised without a good deal more
clear space than 20 feet.
: Actually, the problem is that running is never considered an option.
It's not a practical option - if they desire to assault you, and you run,
given the ~20 feet of distance start conditions, you've just greatly
increased their chance of success.
The social cost of making threatening to assault of officers of the law
effective is not small, either.
: >You can't run backwards faster than they can run forwards, especially if
: >you're a cop in a flak vest and equipment belt.
: But you can dodge to the side.
Not reliably you can't.
Dodging to the side decreases the amount of range rate you can generate
('range rate' is the rate of change in the distance between two
entities), and is *no* guaruntee that the person with the knife will
miss. Going sideways is even slower than going backwards, and to do it
without telegraphing what you're doing takes a world-class ballerina or
world class martial artist, and maybe not then.
: >The constabularly are properly required to summon you to surrender before
: >shooting you in almost all circumstances. (If you are actively engaged
: >in shooting up a burger joint, well, I'm inclined to be lenient - the
: >time saved probably translates into lives saved.) If you *don't*
: >surrender, *and* you are armed, *and* you are presenting a threatening
: >posture, I'd say they were entirely justfied in shooting. (This is about
: >as military as Betty Crocker, by the way.)
: Since when has assuming a threatening posture been a capital offence?
It isn't. Refusing to surrender to a properly identified officer of the
law, while armed, and maintaining a threatening posture, is likely to get
you shot. This should not be surprising; being stupid will get you killed.
: This is my point. Given the knife wielding junkie, if he is finally arrested
: without doing any harm, he'd be charged with assaulting a police officer
: and resisting arrest. What would he get? 10 years? The crimes hardly
: warrant the death penalty.
: If the junkie had the knife to the throat of somebody, there is an immediate
: threat to life, but if it's just the cop and the junkie?
I think the cop is being obligated to take quite enough in the way of
chances with their life by being obligated to summon people to surrender.
Refusing to exist within the public peace - which is what refusing to
surrender to an officer of the law, duly identified, and themselves
acting within the strictures of that peace is - will get you killed. I
don't have a problem with that.
: >If the rules of engagment say 'don't shoot the runners', all someone has
: >to do to get away is to toss their weapon and run. I'd much rather social
: >rules that say 'they've got to summon you to surrender, and you've *got*
: >to stop.'
: If the rules of engagement say 'don't shoot the runners', then there is
: no reason for the perpetrator NOT to drop their weapon and run - and this
: leads to fewer casualties on both sides, cops and non-cops. It would
: also lead to recruiting based on speed rather than strength but that's
: an administrative detail.
Minimizing the casualties is not a sensible objective. It is a
desireable side effect. There is an *enourmous* difference between that two.
: >No-knock warrants and shooting without a challenge are murder
: >and members of the constabulary engaging in such practices should be tried
: >(and if guilty, executed) for murder. But if you're properly summoned to
: >surrender, you damn well stop and sort it out with the nice officer.
: Presuming, of course, that he/she *is* "the nice officer". It works both
: ways. In order for your rule to work, there *must* be some assurance that
: the officer who summons you to surrender is, in fact, "moral". Your ideal
: must be counterbalanced with the ideal police officer, fair, unbiased,
: and "correct". And I bet it would be easier to get your ideal implemented
: as a social more if you implement my ideal, rather than insisting on your
: ideal but not giving strict attention to mine.
It takes a public policy, vigorously enforeced, that officers of the law
caught in violation of their oath will be punished. (I would prefer to
treat 'violation of oath of public service that involves commission of a
felony or worse' as a capital crime.)
And it does *not* require a 'nice' officer; all it requires is an officer
who would prefer to avoid shooting someone. That's much easier to get.
: >And yes, there are all sorts of problems with various bits of social
: >opinion leaking in, but those are not solved by complicating the ROE;
: >complex ROE result in people under stress just winging it. This is bad.
: No argument there. Simple rules of engagement are best, which leaves a lot
: to the judgement of the officer involved. But that judgement is tempered
: by training. If the training is geared towards the unstated but very
: real goal that the officer must at all costs get his man immediately,
: then is that good for society?
Your understanding of the goal appears flawed.
The goal of that sort of training is to increase the chances of the
member of the constabulary living through that sort of situation, mostly
by convincing them that getting into that sort of situation in the first
place is a very bad idea.
This happens to involve the knife wielding junkie getting shot; that is a
side effect, not the goal.
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Consider this, however. There are some disputes that lead to death. No
>law will prevent this. However, if duels are allowed, such a dispute is
>far more likely to result in resolution, and if it gets to the duel,
>both are at equal risk, which to me, is better than a victim being shot
>in the back of the head.
In a duelless society, the person who shoots the victim in the back of
the head may very well be punished for doing so. The likelihood of punishment
may discourage the shooting from happening at all. However, duels are
legal, and not punished; this effect might give a victim a greater chance of
surviving in a duelless society--after all, no shooting at all is safer than
one in a duel.
Of course, you might require that both parties in a duel assent to the duel,
solving the above problem. But then there's another problem: why would the
shooter bother to ask for a duel at all? After all, _he_ wants to reduce his
risk too. If the duel is actually better for the victim because it gives the
victim a greater chance of being able to shoot back, it is worse for the
shooter for exactly the same reason.
As for "no coercion", recall that Lunar society is supposed to do a _lot_ of
things by societal pressures. Societal pressures that say that certain types
of disputes are to be resolved by duels would be just as strong as societal
pressures for "good" things.
Wayne Johnson
>No argument there. Simple rules of engagement are best, which leaves a lot
>to the judgement of the officer involved. But that judgement is tempered
>by training. If the training is geared towards the unstated but very
>real goal that the officer must at all costs get his man immediately,
>then is that good for society?
Since this was started in the realm of Heinlein, this is a good spot
to bring it back.
In the Old West, fleeing meant real difficulty in capturing (or
recapturing) a dangerous criminal, so shooting him was an accepted
option. In Bottom Alley, you could hide only so long - but the only
cops were the Warden's goons. On Red Planet, ditto - the "largely
disinterested Company police" didn't need to hunt for the runaway boys
very long - they just knocked on their parent's door; where else on
Mars could you hide?
It really depends on where you are, which dictates the rules of
engagement.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
David MacLean
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <4ee46b$9...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>In article <11a7cc$f372...@news.twave.net>
>>nola...@twave.net (Nolan Jarvis) wrote:
>
>>>FYI, the close-and-stab time from 20 feet is less than 1 second.
>>>Shoot him if he even /looks/ like he's going to charge.
>>
>>While it may seem that way to you, let us analyze your above statement.
>>
>>Let us round "less than 1 second" up to 1 second.
>>Let us also assume that the knife wielding assailant is an average
>>weight of 150 lbs.
>>And let us simplify the math by assuming constant accelleration from
>>dead stop to whatever velocity attained in the 20 feet and disregarding
>>opposing forces like friction.
>>
>>Now, 20 feet = 6.096 metres
>>150 pounds = 68.0388555 kilograms
>>
>>The accelleration equation is s = 1/2 * a * t^2.
>>This means that in the above problem, a = 2 * 6.096 * 1^2 = 12.192 m/s^2
>
>up a flight of stairs can generate that much power.
>
Power is work divided by time, work is force times distance and force is
mass times accelleration. Therefore, power is equal to mass times
accelleration time distance divided by time. Consequently a small amount
of power can accellerate a large mass through a large distance given
a sufficient amount of time. Don't confuse *power* with *accelleration*;
accelleration is but one factor in the calculation of power.
If your juxtapostion of power and accelleration were correct, then
when anybody went in an upwards direction, they'd automatically weigh
double what they did.
Let's put that in perspective. Let's set up a challenge for you. Let's
erect a scaffold 20 feet in height. Put a cannon ball directly over
a switch that once activated, blows up a bomb right under the switch.
Let's put you, 20 feet away. All you have to do to avoid the blast
is to deflect the cannon ball a couple of inches away from the switch.
You stand behind a line with sensors that can tell when you break the
plane of the line. You have a switch that drops the ball. If you break
the plane of the line before you push the switch, the bomb goes off.
Feel up to the challenge?
>>In addition, in order to cover 20 feet in one second, the assailants
>>average velocity would have to be 20 feet per second, naturally.
>
>You're also neglecting the fact that he doesn't have to move quite the
>full 20 feet; if he moves 17 feet closer to you, the knife at the end
>of his arm will reach you.
>
If you are hideously deformed with hands that hang down by your knees.
Do you have three foot arms?
>> But
>>he was at a dead stop to begin with, and given that the average
>>velocity (again assuming constant accelleration and lack of friction)
>>can be calculated by adding the initial velocity (0) to the final velocity
>>and dividing by two, we can calculate his final velocity as 40 feet per
>>second, or putting it into terms that most people would be familiar
>>with, about 27.3 miles per hour.
>
>However, if he accelerated faster at the beginning, he wouldn't need
>to reach that high a speed.
>
Which only increases the energy requirements, Seth. You don't get something
for nothing, and the human body is not an infinite source of energy.
>>Nolan, your statement smacks of something a basic training instructor would
>>say to a class of army recruits in the midst of a war.
>
>Have you ever seen such a demo? I've had a little martial arts
>training, and I can well believe the 1 second time.
>
If you've been following the thread, you know that I have. You will also
know that the setup is such as to impress the participant with the need
to 'eliminate' the threat.
Rick Cook
>Wrong - it is clearly a duel. It is, however, a more extreme set-up
>than most duels, where there might be a decent chance of survival for
>at least one participant, maybe even for both, depending on the customary
>rules for duels.
>
than that.
Otherwise you're in the absurd position of saying every society
countenances dueling.
--RC
Rick Cook
>No, if you follow the opinions expressed in the threads (A Heinlein
>Anecdote,
>Checks to Thuggery on Luna, etc), that is their basic assumption.
>It is generally unspoken, but gradually leaks out.
Why don't you try asking them if that is what they mean. I'm one of the
contributors and it's not what I mean.
--RC
Rick Cook
>>Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, the one I know he avoided was where a fella as nuts as he was
>>>agreed to find a spot, dig a grave, and jump in with Hardin for a
>>>knife fight to the death - unfortunately, Hardin met his end before
>>>the appointment could be made.
>
>>That's hardly a duel Wayne.
>
>appointed place and time, with the object being personal combat. If
>that isn't a duel, what is it?
A fight. If you call a pre-arranged meeting a duel then just about every
culture in human history has countenanced dueling.
>>>Personal challenges were not uncommon;
>>Actually they were extremely uncommon. Even among 'gunfighters' who were a
>>species so rare as to be virtually nonexistant.
>
>>If you'd like a cite: Consider "Tombstone" by John Meyers Meyers, who was
>>a well-known Western historian.
>
>I'll look it up. The old West was a fascinating period.
>
>My point about personal challenges doesn't mean the formal Napoleonic
>duel, with formal seconds, etc. The point I'm making is that a
>grievance was settled with personal combat very often, with both
>parties agreeing that this was the method with which the grievance
>would be solved.
Again, if that's your standard, dueling is universal.
>Hot tempers dictated the action. Two men in an argument over faro (a
>card game, to you greenhorns) could of course take their problem to
>court, for civil or criminal action. Instead, it was socially
>acceptable to allow the argument to be settled with pistols.
Well, not exactly. Shooting someone over a card game was hardly socially
acceptable -- any more that mugging is socially acceptable today. They'd
both get you thrown in jail -- and the case of shooting someone over cards
you could very easily get hung for it.
> Note
>that certain weapons were not allowed to be used in this type of
>incident. "Hide-out" guns (derringers), shotguns, and hidden
>accomplices were not encouraged, nor was "getting the drop on a man" -
>in other words, not giving him a chance to fight back - an acceptable
>situation. All were grounds for indictment for murder.
Wayne, you've been watching _way_ too many Westerns. First, the classic
shootout could get you indicted for murder and very likely would absent
exceptional circumstances.
Second, all those methods were commonly used in gun fights. The
stand-up-and-draw contest is almost entirely a myth.
>The horrific death toll of shootings in places like Tombstone, and
>other Western boom towns, was usually the result of people defying
>these codes, so I can agree that formal duels were not the reason for
>all of the killing. But when a fair fight did occur, no one objected,
>and the law did not intervene.
Uh, _what_ horrific death tolls? Most parts of the west were extremely
peaceful. Including Tombstone, in general.
> You mentioned in another post the incident of the fight between Pat
>Garrett and Billy Antrim, which is undocumented save from Garrett's
>testimony, and the OK Corral encounter, which involved several people,
>as the frontier equivalent of duels. Both involved sworn law
>enforcement officers, which eliminates dueling from their actions.
Right. The fact that the Clantons had ambushed one of the Earp boys had
nothing to do with it.
Just for fun, go digging and see how many actual stand-up-and-draw
gunfights you can find.
--RC
Wayne Johnson
>In article <4ehm96$i...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>The horrific death toll of shootings in places like Tombstone, and
>>other Western boom towns, was usually the result of people defying
>>these codes, so I can agree that formal duels were not the reason for
>>all of the killing. But when a fair fight did occur, no one objected,
>>and the law did not intervene.
>What horrific death toll? Have you got a number and a cite?
John Wesley Hardin - 44 men in ten years
Jim Miller - 51 killings
Bill Longley - 32 men
Clay Allison - at least 15 men
Chunk Colbert - 7 men
Augustine Chacon - 29 men
John King Fisher - 7 men, but explained, "I don't count Mexicans"
William Bonney, or Billy Antrim, or Billy the kid - between 9 and 21
"The Gunfighters", Time Life Books. Review the footnotes for specific
cites; they are copious and fascinating source materials.
These were the notorious killers, and there were many more. The wise
Westerner barred his door and answered it with a weapon, and tilled
his fields armed. Systematic law enforcement did not reach the west
until the late 1880's, and outlaws and psychotics roamed free and
unchecked in an era where communications were sporadic and
identification difficult.
Not only did many people die unnecessarily, but their killers stood
little chance of getting apprehended or punished if not immediately
caught. This is how the men named above managed to gain such high
death tolls. There were many more like them.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Zebee Johnstone
: David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
: >I can see a definate societal interest in insuring that neither of the
: >participants in a duel are coerced into something that they stand little
: >chance of succeeding in. But if no coersion exists and both are willing
: >participants, what is society's interest in forbidding the duel?
As I understand it, the duelling system led to far too many
yong men dying or being crippled.
There is always coercion present - the unspoken thing being "you
are not a real man/you are a coward/you have no honour" and all
of those other peer group things that an older person with solid
reputation may be able to resist, but a younger one apparently
could not.
So.. you end up with a lot of carnage for no good reason, and
losing a lot of investment in education and military training.
Zebee
Ken Arromdee
Wayne Johnson <cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>What horrific death toll? Have you got a number and a cite?
Over how many years and from what size population?
Keith Wood
dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
[ In
[the time it takes for the observer to note that the "attacker" has
[started to move and to start the stopwatch, a man with a gun could
[have pulled the trigger.
Actually, the reaction time of the observer will be higher than for the man
with the gun. The observer has this mindset:
". . .can I punch the button? Can I? Can I? Can I? YES!"
The guy with the gun:
"I want to take him prisoner, so I can't shoot unless he does something. I
want to take him prisoner, so I can't shoot unless he does something. I want
to take him prisoner -- WHAT the hell is he DOING?! Doesn't he know that I've
got a GUN?!"
As you can see, mindset is a major factor.
[Yes, it all happens "quickly", but a plastic dart gun is not a reasonable
[substitute for a 9mm if you want to demonstrate what would "really" happen,
[for a bullet, kills, or if off centre, imposes torque, spinning the victim.
Not much inertia in a 9mm. And I'm not willing to bet my life that even the
.45 I carry will stop him if I let him get too close.
[If you are so sure of the results, then instead of the rubber knife and
[dart gun routine, let's make it a real knife and a real gun - you take
[the knife, I'll take the gun. 20 feet separation. You can start when ready.
At 20 ft, YOU will LOSE. At 25 feet, you will PROBABLY lose.
This is real world, well known among those of us to whom this information is
important.
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor (Camp Verde AZ)
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
Copyright c 1996 All rights reserved. Distribution by Microsoft Network
constitutes agreement by Microsoft Corporation to pay me $25 per instance
===============================================================
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4ek78a$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Consider this, however. There are some disputes that lead to death. No
>>law will prevent this. However, if duels are allowed, such a dispute is
>>far more likely to result in resolution, and if it gets to the duel,
>>both are at equal risk, which to me, is better than a victim being shot
>>in the back of the head.
>
>In a duelless society, the person who shoots the victim in the back of
>the head may very well be punished for doing so.
But not as likely as we hope. Even up here, in the land of frost and
snow, where it is taken on faith that the Mounties always get their man,
even the RCMP have unsolved homocides.
>The likelihood of punishment
>may discourage the shooting from happening at all. However, duels are
>legal, and not punished; this effect might give a victim a greater chance of
>surviving in a duelless society--after all, no shooting at all is safer than
>one in a duel.
>
Once again, you demonstrate a perhaps unconscious belief that if it were not
for "the law", mankind descends into savagery. But people do not kill
because it is against the law; people do not kill because of their firmly
held beliefs that killing is wrong.
And while we are adding up casualties, would an executive be more or less
careful of the safety of his company's product if, instead of being tied
up in lawsuits where the best lawyer wins, there is a very real chance that
he will have to defend his decisions with his life?
>Of course, you might require that both parties in a duel assent to the duel,
>solving the above problem. But then there's another problem: why would the
>shooter bother to ask for a duel at all? After all, _he_ wants to reduce his
>risk too. If the duel is actually better for the victim because it gives the
>victim a greater chance of being able to shoot back, it is worse for the
>shooter for exactly the same reason.
>
With the safety valve of the duel, most disputes would not fester until
the they reached the killing stage. The risk of a duel would be very
real, whereas the risk of murder is unreal; after all, it's against the
law, isn't it?
>As for "no coercion", recall that Lunar society is supposed to do a _lot_ of
>things by societal pressures. Societal pressures that say that certain types
>of disputes are to be resolved by duels would be just as strong as societal
>pressures for "good" things.
This presupposes an absolute "good", rather than a "good" relative to the
society in question. This, I believe, may be our fundamental disagreement.
Behind all your comments is the belief in some things that are "good"
absolutely, and some things that are "bad" absolutely.
However, I have yet to find a moral absolutist who cannot agree to the
fact that there are exceptions to these moral absolutes. Killing is
absolutely wrong (except when attacked or at war). Stealing is absolutely
wrong (except to feed a starving child). Lying is absolutely wrong (except
for an honest answer to your wife's question, "Honey, is my butt getting
big?")
Tell you what Ken, why don't you make a list of your absolute "goods" and
absolute "evils", and then eliminate those that have no exceptions. No
weaselling by including the exceptions in the rules.
David MacLean
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>: saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>: >David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>: >: knife and suction dart gun scenario, the emphasis for the gun holder
>: >: is to fire instead of *avoiding the knife*?
>: >Because it's incredibly hard to do?
>
>: Only if you refuse to accept retreat as an option.
>
>As noted below, they can run faster forward than you can backward.
>Turning around takes time. It is not advised without a good deal more
>clear space than 20 feet.
>
Linear, versus planar thinking. While with an army, retreat would most
likely be carried out toward's the rear, with an individual, retreat could
be towards either side.
Besides, who said that retreat should be considered only after the
knife wielding junkie begins the charge. Retreat should be considered
an option right from the start, when you've first "cornered" the
junkie, not when the junkie becomes aggressive.
Once again I point out that the scenario in question reflects battlefield
thinking, law of the jungle, kill or be killed.
>: Actually, the problem is that running is never considered an option.
>
>It's not a practical option - if they desire to assault you, and you run,
>given the ~20 feet of distance start conditions, you've just greatly
>increased their chance of success.
>
So if you find yourself ~20 feet away from a potential aggressor,
immediately back off.
>The social cost of making threatening to assault of officers of the law
>effective is not small, either.
>
As large as the social cost of a death? Criminal codes do not consider
it to be so.
>: >You can't run backwards faster than they can run forwards, especially if
>: >you're a cop in a flak vest and equipment belt.
>: But you can dodge to the side.
>
>Not reliably you can't.
>
>Dodging to the side decreases the amount of range rate you can generate
>('range rate' is the rate of change in the distance between two
>entities), and is *no* guaruntee that the person with the knife will
>miss. Going sideways is even slower than going backwards, and to do it
>without telegraphing what you're doing takes a world-class ballerina or
>world class martial artist, and maybe not then.
>
Speaking of range rate in this context merely clouds the issue, since
a man moving flat out the way this scenario has him move will be unable
to change his direction. You've already got him exerting 3 horsepower;
changing direction radically enough in enough time would have him
exert even more power, and if he had that power to spare, he would just
move at you faster. And let's face it, you don't have to move 20 feet to
the side; one and a half would do if it was the side opposite to the
knife hand.
>: >The constabularly are properly required to summon you to surrender before
>: >shooting you in almost all circumstances. (If you are actively engaged
>: >in shooting up a burger joint, well, I'm inclined to be lenient - the
>: >time saved probably translates into lives saved.) If you *don't*
>: >surrender, *and* you are armed, *and* you are presenting a threatening
>: >posture, I'd say they were entirely justfied in shooting. (This is about
>: >as military as Betty Crocker, by the way.)
>
>: Since when has assuming a threatening posture been a capital offence?
>
>It isn't. Refusing to surrender to a properly identified officer of the
>law, while armed, and maintaining a threatening posture, is likely to get
>you shot. This should not be surprising; being stupid will get you killed.
>
But wouldn't that hold for the guy that was shot by a mob hitman? He was
being stupid, too. Yet we villainize the hitman, and laud the cop.
>: This is my point. Given the knife wielding junkie, if he is finally arrested
>: without doing any harm, he'd be charged with assaulting a police officer
>: and resisting arrest. What would he get? 10 years? The crimes hardly
>: warrant the death penalty.
>
>: If the junkie had the knife to the throat of somebody, there is an immediate
>: threat to life, but if it's just the cop and the junkie?
>
>I think the cop is being obligated to take quite enough in the way of
>chances with their life by being obligated to summon people to surrender.
>
You "think"? And can you give some justification to this "thinking", or
is the feeling justification enough?
>Refusing to exist within the public peace - which is what refusing to
>surrender to an officer of the law, duly identified, and themselves
>acting within the strictures of that peace is - will get you killed. I
>don't have a problem with that.
>
And I do not have a problem with a mobster being rubbed out by the mob.
Why is it that when you don't have a problem with something, this is more
relevant than when I don't have a problem with something?
>: >If the rules of engagment say 'don't shoot the runners', all someone has
>: >to do to get away is to toss their weapon and run. I'd much rather social
>: >rules that say 'they've got to summon you to surrender, and you've *got*
>: >to stop.'
>
>: If the rules of engagement say 'don't shoot the runners', then there is
>: no reason for the perpetrator NOT to drop their weapon and run - and this
>: leads to fewer casualties on both sides, cops and non-cops. It would
>: also lead to recruiting based on speed rather than strength but that's
>: an administrative detail.
>
>Minimizing the casualties is not a sensible objective. It is a
>desireable side effect. There is an *enourmous* difference between that two.
>
In a purportedly "Christian" nations, whose laws are based on the strictures
laid down in the bible, minimization of casualties is not a *sensible*
objective? Why not? Because you say so? Because it has not been an
objective *so far*?
If minimization of casualties is not a sensible objective, then why is
murder considered to be a more heinous crime than theft?
>: >No-knock warrants and shooting without a challenge are murder
>: >and members of the constabulary engaging in such practices should be tried
>: >(and if guilty, executed) for murder. But if you're properly summoned to
>: >surrender, you damn well stop and sort it out with the nice officer.
>
>: Presuming, of course, that he/she *is* "the nice officer". It works both
>: ways. In order for your rule to work, there *must* be some assurance that
>: the officer who summons you to surrender is, in fact, "moral". Your ideal
>: must be counterbalanced with the ideal police officer, fair, unbiased,
>: and "correct". And I bet it would be easier to get your ideal implemented
>: as a social more if you implement my ideal, rather than insisting on your
>: ideal but not giving strict attention to mine.
>
>It takes a public policy, vigorously enforeced, that officers of the law
>caught in violation of their oath will be punished. (I would prefer to
>treat 'violation of oath of public service that involves commission of a
>felony or worse' as a capital crime.)
>
And who would enforce this felony? The police themselves? If you were a
cop, would you turn in your partner, a man that you had lived and worked
with for years, to the possibility of the gas chamber?
What were you saying about "sensible"?
>And it does *not* require a 'nice' officer; all it requires is an officer
>who would prefer to avoid shooting someone. That's much easier to get.
>
These are a dime a dozen. In fact, it takes long and hard training and
indoctrination in order for the army to turn out "effective" troops, ie,
those who will close and kill.
>: >And yes, there are all sorts of problems with various bits of social
>: >opinion leaking in, but those are not solved by complicating the ROE;
>: >complex ROE result in people under stress just winging it. This is bad.
>
>: No argument there. Simple rules of engagement are best, which leaves a lot
>: to the judgement of the officer involved. But that judgement is tempered
>: by training. If the training is geared towards the unstated but very
>: real goal that the officer must at all costs get his man immediately,
>: then is that good for society?
>
>Your understanding of the goal appears flawed.
>
>The goal of that sort of training is to increase the chances of the
>member of the constabulary living through that sort of situation, mostly
>by convincing them that getting into that sort of situation in the first
>place is a very bad idea.
>
His greatest chance of living through that sort of situation is to not
get into that situation in the first place. If a cop is chasing a criminal,
and corners him, then that in itself should be warning enough; nothing
fights harder than a cornered rat.
>This happens to involve the knife wielding junkie getting shot; that is a
>side effect, not the goal.
>
No, that is the GOAL of the training, to bring the fear of God into the
recruit and cause him to chose the shoot option automatically.
It is you, sir, that have a flawed understanding of the goal of that
training scenario, which is understandable since those who face that
training scenario are seldom aware of the goal.
David MacLean
zjoh...@alsvid.scu.edu.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote:
>: In article <4ee460$9...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>: David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>: >I can see a definate societal interest in insuring that neither of the
>: >participants in a duel are coerced into something that they stand little
>: >chance of succeeding in. But if no coersion exists and both are willing
>: >participants, what is society's interest in forbidding the duel?
>
>As I understand it, the duelling system led to far too many
>yong men dying or being crippled.
>
Which was a bad thing at that time since each young man who died or
was crippled was one less potential soldier. Did you know that the
original definition of "mayhem" was causing such injury as to keep the
injured person from bearing arms in the King's army.
The trouble was, in that time, there was an alternative use for the
naturally aggressive nature of the young human male. Is there today?
>There is always coercion present - the unspoken thing being "you
>are not a real man/you are a coward/you have no honour" and all
>of those other peer group things that an older person with solid
>reputation may be able to resist, but a younger one apparently
>could not.
>
>So.. you end up with a lot of carnage for no good reason, and
>losing a lot of investment in education and military training.
No good reason that you can see, but the participants obviously saw
a good enough reason to risk death for.
And in todays world, wouldn't you say that high unemployment is losing
a lot of investment in education?
Keith Wood
bdec...@sunm4048ar.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) wrote:
[|> Personal challenges were not uncommon; they didn't have the grace of
[|> Napoleonic officers and their seconds, certainly, but resolving
[|> disputes by means of personal combat was common enough for Bat
[|> Masterson and Wyatt Earp to make a living quelling it. Cite? Here's
[|> an easy one: Time-Life Books "The Gunfighters", available at every
[|> public library.
It may surprise you, but the editors of Time-Life Books are A), in the business
of selling books, B), aware that they couldn't sell a book titled "The Men Who
Watched Damn Little Happen," and C), far from being experts on the Old West, or
they would realize that Masterson and Earp didn't make any more "living" with
their guns than does the average cop today.
_I_, however, LIVE in the old West -- my TV station is 2 miles from the
renovated Fort Verde, I live half a mile from one of the 6 Yavapai-Apache
reservations (all are within 15 miles or so), and the history of the Old West
is of special interest to me, as my great-grandfather was Edmund Wood, the
cowboy who went to Montana from the Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas/New Mexico area.
[I've read that one, and (I think that it is stated in that specific book)
[that the major edge in a gunfight was to already have the gun out, that
[there was a strong advantage in seeking out ones opponent when one is
[ready, and that this was known and taken advantage of.
Yep. "Shoot-from-behind" was also a popular tactic.
Pam Wells
d...@carcosa.demon.co.uk "Antony J. Shepherd (Dop" writes:
> Isn't it time to move this one to
> rec.arts.sf.heinlein.anecdote.rambling.bollocks?
Way past time, actually....
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk "Tudor for TAFF"
Wayne Johnson
>In article <4edhi2$j...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>bdec...@sunm4048ar.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) wrote:
>[|> Personal challenges were not uncommon; they didn't have the grace of
>[|> Napoleonic officers and their seconds, certainly, but resolving
>[|> disputes by means of personal combat was common enough for Bat
>[|> Masterson and Wyatt Earp to make a living quelling it. Cite? Here's
>[|> an easy one: Time-Life Books "The Gunfighters", available at every
>[|> public library.
>It may surprise you, but the editors of Time-Life Books are A), in the business
>of selling books, B), aware that they couldn't sell a book titled "The Men Who
>Watched Damn Little Happen," and C), far from being experts on the Old West, or
>they would realize that Masterson and Earp didn't make any more "living" with
>their guns than does the average cop today.
Notice that Masterson and Earp aren't on the list of killers, and
neither one (if you mean Wyatt, anyway) did a significant amount of
killing - but Wyatt did use his guns in the OK Corral incident, and
Holliday was a killer of note.
>_I_, however, LIVE in the old West -- my TV station is 2 miles from the
>renovated Fort Verde, I live half a mile from one of the 6 Yavapai-Apache
>reservations (all are within 15 miles or so), and the history of the Old West
>is of special interest to me, as my great-grandfather was Edmund Wood, the
>cowboy who went to Montana from the Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas/New Mexico area.
Here's a list of _some_ of the sources cited in that book:
-The Daily Nugget, Tombstone, AZ, selected issues, 1881
-J.W. Buel, "The Border Outlaws", Historical Publishing Co., 1882
-"The Life of John Wesley Hardin as Written by Himself", 1961,
University of Oklahoma Press
-Nyle H. Miller and Joseph W. Snell, "Great Gunfighters of teh Kansas
Cowtowns 1867-1886", University of Nebraska Press, 1963
I won't go on; the credits take up half of a large page, in fine
print, and are all of good source material. I have no doubt that the
folks who wrote this book weren't lying, exaggerating, or making a
work of fiction. Take a look before denigrating it.
Glad to know you have ancestry in the area; so do I. My great
grandfather, Luke Conley, was a deputy sheriff in Tucson in the 1920's
and '30's; my mothers ancestors moved to Arizona from Texas in the
late 1800's and we have extensive roots there. They were a
contentious group, and we are researching now which ones were in law
enforcement and the military, but we know that I have folks in both
fields from the time they got to Arizona.
Grampa Luke saw a significant amount of action as a Tuscon cop, by the
way, though he never killed anybody that I know of.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>Once again, you demonstrate a perhaps unconscious belief that if it were not
>for "the law", mankind descends into savagery. But people do not kill
>because it is against the law; people do not kill because of their firmly
>held beliefs that killing is wrong.
I once had a clear chance to kill someone who needed killing; never
mind why. I didn't do it, because I thought that the law would not
understand. (It would have been considered "gang related", though I
despise gangs and always have, and have never been in one - the
gangster being discussed is now a celebrated resident on San Quentin's
Death Row.)
I sure didn't think blowing this person away was wrong. Time proved
me right, since he was later convicted of one murder and was known to
have committed several others. I just didn't need to do time for his
death - a selfish move on my part, since the wrong he committed for
which I was ready to kill had happened to someone else close to me -
and I walked away.
The law is a powerful motivation for those raised to respect and fear
it. It is all that stands between some folks and the yawing chasm of
murder. Remove the penalty and see how many moral angels you find.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>The likelihood of punishment
>>may discourage the shooting from happening at all. However, duels are
>>legal, and not punished; this effect might give a victim a greater chance of
>>surviving in a duelless society--after all, no shooting at all is safer than
>>one in a duel.
>for "the law", mankind descends into savagery. But people do not kill
>because it is against the law; people do not kill because of their firmly
>held beliefs that killing is wrong.
Your fallacy here is in going from "it isn't the law which keeps you and I
and many other people from killing" to "it isn't the law which keeps everyone
from killing". This is not a valid conclusion; it is quite possible that
1) most people would not kill regardless of the law, and 2) most killings
are prevented by laws discouraging people from killing. Both at the same
time.
>And while we are adding up casualties, would an executive be more or less
>careful of the safety of his company's product if, instead of being tied
>up in lawsuits where the best lawyer wins, there is a very real chance that
>he will have to defend his decisions with his life?
You'd get a lot fewer products that way. Because when a product goes to mil-
lions of people, it's guaranteed, just by chance, that _someone_ will be
pissed off for no adequate reason and kill the executive. Would you make a
product knowing that, even if it's safe, _every single one_ of millions of
people has to be absolutely sane, or else you die?
And heaven forbid you create a product that's not absolutely safe. You build
your lawn mower, put on warnings against improper use, build in attachments
to keep people from misusing it, etc. Then some fool buys it, uses it
against the instructions, breaks off the safety attachments, then loses a
finger in it. So he shoots you instead of filing a frivolous lawsuit.
>>Of course, you might require that both parties in a duel assent to the duel,
>>solving the above problem. But then there's another problem: why would the
>>shooter bother to ask for a duel at all? After all, _he_ wants to reduce his
>>risk too. If the duel is actually better for the victim because it gives the
>>victim a greater chance of being able to shoot back, it is worse for the
>>shooter for exactly the same reason.
>With the safety valve of the duel, most disputes would not fester until
>the they reached the killing stage. The risk of a duel would be very
>real, whereas the risk of murder is unreal; after all, it's against the
>law, isn't it?
What safety valve? If the duel is optional for both sides, there won't _be_
any duels if everyone assesses the situation accurately. Assassination will
be better for one side (and a duel worse), and worse for the other side (and a
duel better). The side for whom assassination is better (whether it's better
to the victim because he thinks it's less likely, or whether it's better to
the attacker) will reject the duel.
It can't be a safety valve if it never comes up.
>>As for "no coercion", recall that Lunar society is supposed to do a _lot_ of
>>things by societal pressures. Societal pressures that say that certain types
>>of disputes are to be resolved by duels would be just as strong as societal
>>pressures for "good" things.
>This presupposes an absolute "good", rather than a "good" relative to the
>society in question. This, I believe, may be our fundamental disagreement.
>Behind all your comments is the belief in some things that are "good"
>absolutely, and some things that are "bad" absolutely.
My comments don't need to be interpreted as absolutes--I did mention "good",
but whether the other acts are "good" is actually irrelevant; it's just that
I got a little irony (at the cost of clarity) by adding the word.
Lunar society does a lot of things by societal pressures. Why aren't there
also societal pressures for duels? (pressure of a type I would call
'coercion') See? No "good" or "bad" there.
Wayne Johnson
>A fight at an agreed upon place or time isn't a duel. There's more to it
>than that.
>Otherwise you're in the absurd position of saying every society
>countenances dueling.
duel: a prearranged combat between two persons, fought with deadly
weapons according to and accepted code of procedure, esp. to settle a
private quarrel.
-The Random House College Dictionary
Sounds like a duel to me.
Now, if you have a problem with the procedure, what is it?
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
P Nielsen Hayden
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>
>Grampa Luke saw a significant amount of action as a Tuscon cop, by the
>way, though he never killed anybody that I know of.
>
Wow, Tuscons have been happening since the mid-1970s, and I never knew their
concom called their roving troubleshooters "cops." That's even worse than
"security." Gary Farber, to the white courtesy phone, please.
Maybe it's a local joke, something peculiar to the city of Tucson?
Orthographically yours,
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
Wayne Johnson
>A fight. If you call a pre-arranged meeting a duel then just about every
>culture in human history has countenanced dueling.
No argument there.
>>Wayne:
>>My point about personal challenges doesn't mean the formal Napoleonic
>>duel, with formal seconds, etc. The point I'm making is that a
>>grievance was settled with personal combat very often, with both
>>parties agreeing that this was the method with which the grievance
>>would be solved.
>Rick:
>Again, if that's your standard, dueling is universal.
I believe that it is, or was, the case.
>>Wayne:
>>Hot tempers dictated the action. Two men in an argument over faro (a
>>card game, to you greenhorns) could of course take their problem to
>>court, for civil or criminal action. Instead, it was socially
>>acceptable to allow the argument to be settled with pistols.
>Rick:
>Well, not exactly. Shooting someone over a card game was hardly socially
>acceptable -- any more that mugging is socially acceptable today. They'd
>both get you thrown in jail -- and the case of shooting someone over cards
>you could very easily get hung for it.
Unless it was "self-defense", the usual excuse for blowing a chum
away. Usual sequence
"Gimme back my money, you four-flushing son of a bitch!"
(Modern equivalent: "I've been cheated!")
"Get outa here, ya smelly cowpoke!"
(Modern equivalent: "You lose.")
Drawing a gun: "I mean it, ya toilet watered pansy!"
(Modern equivalent: "I'm calling my lawyer!")
BANG! BANG! "You all saw it...he drew first!"
(Modern equivalent: "My lawyer is Johnny Cochran, so there!")
Now, you can say this isn't a duel, but both folks were willing to
fight, and neither wanted an outsider to handle the dispute; either
party could have backed down but decided to handle the problem via
combat.
>> Note
>>that certain weapons were not allowed to be used in this type of
>>incident. "Hide-out" guns (derringers), shotguns, and hidden
>>accomplices were not encouraged, nor was "getting the drop on a man" -
>>in other words, not giving him a chance to fight back - an acceptable
>>situation. All were grounds for indictment for murder.
>Wayne, you've been watching _way_ too many Westerns. First, the classic
>shootout could get you indicted for murder and very likely would absent
>exceptional circumstances.
Oh, I don't meen the usual meeting in the middle of the street. Also,
as I just illustrated, the classic defense was that it was self
defense - a hard thing to argue, when one party is dead, and both were
wearing guns.
>Second, all those methods were commonly used in gun fights. The
>stand-up-and-draw contest is almost entirely a myth.
Very true. Still, if you lived or worked in an area where violence
was common, gun fighting was a handy skill. The West was filled with
combat veterans and psycopaths, both of which had no compunction about
killing to solve problems, and law enforcement had a hard time chasing
miscreants across multiple jurisdictions and territories.
>>The horrific death toll of shootings in places like Tombstone, and
>>other Western boom towns, was usually the result of people defying
>>these codes, so I can agree that formal duels were not the reason for
>>all of the killing. But when a fair fight did occur, no one objected,
>>and the law did not intervene.
>Uh, _what_ horrific death tolls? Most parts of the west were extremely
>peaceful. Including Tombstone, in general.
Check the post concerning the incredible number of killings by just a
few men. In most places, things were very quiet, but when the bad man
from Bodie showed up, there was hell to pay, and it was paid. This is
documented.
>> You mentioned in another post the incident of the fight between Pat
>>Garrett and Billy Antrim, which is undocumented save from Garrett's
>>testimony, and the OK Corral encounter, which involved several people,
>>as the frontier equivalent of duels. Both involved sworn law
>>enforcement officers, which eliminates dueling from their actions.
>Right. The fact that the Clantons had ambushed one of the Earp boys had
>nothing to do with it.
Quit watching movies, yourself. James Earp never got involved in the
feud; Wyatt, Morgan, and Virgil, along with Doc Holliday, were all at
the OK Corral. Virgil was shotgunned two months later, and lost the
use of his arm; Morgan was killed after five months after that
encounter. The events leading up to the OK Corral shootout were based
on suspicions of horse theft and other depradations by the Clantons
and McLaurys.
>Just for fun, go digging and see how many actual stand-up-and-draw
>gunfights you can find.
I can't think of one other than the OK Corral, and won't dig since
it's pointless...we aren't talking about lace-sleeved dandies, after
all, are we?
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Barry DeCicco
|> In article <4eoi5a$m...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
|> David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
|>
|> >And while we are adding up casualties, would an executive be more or less
|> >careful of the safety of his company's product if, instead of being tied
|> >up in lawsuits where the best lawyer wins, there is a very real chance that
|> >he will have to defend his decisions with his life?
|>
Traditionally, problems like schmucks being pissed off at those in
power have not stopped people from having and using power, frequently
in ways nastier and more obvious than selling an unsafe product.
Barry
Jonathan M Thompson
>Actually I thought we were talking about the nature of the society Heinlein
>portrays in Beyond This Horizon. Whether such a society would work in
>practice is another issue as far as I'm concerned. I don't find it wildly
>implausible and I think the business about armed, polite societies has some
>validity -- but I'm not prepared to defend either exceptionally strongly.
Well just having the 2nd Admendment is enough of a validity for the
society. In the South it would be considered paradise
Nolan Jarvis
What, in the name of common sense, has this knife-wielding "bad-guy"
done to earn an extraordinary effort to avoid shooting him, at an
increased risk to the cop?
Why should the cop make any effort whatsoever to avoid the attack when
he/she has the means at hand to put a stop to it?
If an assailant came at me with a knife, with the apparent intention
of using it, if I had the means at hand to kill him on the spot, I
would do it without a second thought. _He_ accepted that risk when he
made his move. (The classic mistake of bringing a knife to a
gunfight.)
-nolan
Barry DeCicco
|> rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
|>
The only quibble I have with that definition is that many societies
have added extra conditions, for their legal definition of a duel,
such as, between two people of sufficient social rank, using 'honorable'
weapons, possibly at a certain place, and so on. Frequently,
a fight might meet all of the dictionary conditions, but fail society's
conditions, even in societies which sanction dueling.
Barry
PS Just because dueling is not technically legal, doesn't
mean that society doesn't recognize and sanction dueling.
In certain European countries, dueling was illegal, but
part of honorable society. Refusing a duel could bring
severe social consequences, and killing in a duel would
be presecuted infrequently.
Graydon
: In a purportedly "Christian" nations, whose laws are based on the strictures
: laid down in the bible, minimization of casualties is not a *sensible*
: objective? Why not? Because you say so? Because it has not been an
: objective *so far*?
Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
I am most definately not a Christian, and do not recognize Christianity
as having an particular moral authority.
It's not a sensible objective because it doesn't work.
What works is making the cost of 'defecting' - acting in a way that
places personal preference ahead of other people's essentially
equivalent right to exist unmolested - intolerably high. Anyone with
half a clue will subsequently refrain, and the number of people who get
shot tends to go down.
It's also necessary to provide people with some other options for how to
exist in society, but that's a seperate can of worms.
: If minimization of casualties is not a sensible objective, then why is
: murder considered to be a more heinous crime than theft?
Becuase it's a more extreme case of acting in a way that places personal
preferences ahead of other people's essentially equivalent right to exist.
: >It takes a public policy, vigorously enforeced, that officers of the law
: >caught in violation of their oath will be punished. (I would prefer to
: >treat 'violation of oath of public service that involves commission of a
: >felony or worse' as a capital crime.)
: And who would enforce this felony? The police themselves? If you were a
: cop, would you turn in your partner, a man that you had lived and worked
: with for years, to the possibility of the gas chamber?
If I don't, I too deserve death.
You can set the system up so that there is a reasonable chance such
members of the constabulary will be tried; this suffices.
: >The goal of that sort of training is to increase the chances of the
: >member of the constabulary living through that sort of situation, mostly
: >by convincing them that getting into that sort of situation in the first
: >place is a very bad idea.
: His greatest chance of living through that sort of situation is to not
: get into that situation in the first place. If a cop is chasing a criminal,
: and corners him, then that in itself should be warning enough; nothing
: fights harder than a cornered rat.
The constable is not entitled to let the criminal go.
This disposes of their greatest chance of avoiding harm, you are quite
correct. So? The reason the constable is in uniform and armed is to
catch the criminal; if you just want to let the criminal go, you don't
bother paying for all those uniformed members of the constabulary.
: >This happens to involve the knife wielding junkie getting shot; that is a
: >side effect, not the goal.
: No, that is the GOAL of the training, to bring the fear of God into the
: recruit and cause him to chose the shoot option automatically.
Ever seen or taken police training?
'Shooting automatically' is not an accurate description of any of the
bits I've seen. More like 'shoot if you absolutely cannot avoid it.'
: It is you, sir, that have a flawed understanding of the goal of that
: training scenario, which is understandable since those who face that
: training scenario are seldom aware of the goal.
I've encounted that scenario in four different places - military
sneak-up-and-slit-their-throats training, a martial arts class, a women's
self defence course run by someone with a bad, bad case of Disney
Chemical poisoning (break and run, rather than break, disable, and run),
and in the data that came out of a university of Montreal study that
really wanted to prove that pepper spray was effective, but couldn't.
Guess what?
They all agree on a few things.
1) Moving away fast enough to never come within knife reach is very hard.
2) Reacting fast enough to hit the person closing with the knife first
with a ranged weapon is pretty much impossible if the start positions are
less than 8 m apart.
You may not *like* this, but you're stuck with it.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Nolan Jarvis
AAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh...........
Nolan Jarvis
AAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh...........
--
|Fidonet: Nolan Jarvis 1:101/175.1
|Internet: Nolan....@101-175-1.vader.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
R. A. Holt
> David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
> : saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
> : >Minimizing the casualties is not a sensible objective. It is a
> : >desireable side effect. There is an *enourmous* difference between that two.
>
> : In a purportedly "Christian" nations, whose laws are based on the strictures
> : laid down in the bible, minimization of casualties is not a *sensible*
> : objective? Why not? Because you say so? Because it has not been an
> : objective *so far*?
>
> Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
'The supremacy of God and the rule of Law' , Canada is VERY much a Christian nation
for better or worse.
L8r, Coppertop
> Guess what?
>
>
>
>
> --
Bob Goudreau
: rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
: > A fight at an agreed upon place or time isn't a duel. There's more
: > to it than that. Otherwise you're in the absurd position of saying
: > every society countenances dueling.
: duel: a prearranged combat between two persons, fought with deadly
: weapons according to and accepted code of procedure, esp. to settle a
: private quarrel.
: -The Random House College Dictionary
: Sounds like a duel to me.
It sure doesn't to me. A "fight at an agreed upon place or time"
doesn't imply that weapons are used, or, if they are used, that they
are deadly. That's what's separates a fist-fight out behind the
junior high school from Aaron Burr vs. Alexander Hamilton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Ken Arromdee
>> Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
> Maybe you missed this , the Canadian constitution starts with the words
>'The supremacy of God and the rule of Law' , Canada is VERY much a Christian nation
>for better or worse.
I have news for you. There are people who believe in God but are not
Christian.
Nolan Jarvis
>>However, I have yet to find a moral absolutist who cannot agree to the
>>fact that there are exceptions to these moral absolutes. Killing is
>>absolutely wrong (except when attacked or at war). Stealing is absolutely
>>wrong (except to feed a starving child). Lying is absolutely wrong (except
>>for an honest answer to your wife's question, "Honey, is my butt getting
>>big?")
>OK. I hate to put myself in the camp of the moral absolutist (on
>the whole, I'm more convinced by utilitarian principles), but I have
>to say, I think killing is wrong. It is still wrong when you are
>attacked, and it is still wrong if you are at war. However, it
>may in some cases be the lesser of two evils. If person A attacks
>person B with the intent of killing person B, that is wrong. If
>B instead kills A, that is also wrong, but no more so (and possibly
>less so) than the first alternative. Given this, B should not be
>criticised for choosing the option which is best for B, as long as
>there is no third alternative which B could have reasonably taken
>in the circumstances.
>Stealing is not absolutely wrong, it is only usually wrong, because
>its net effects on society are usually negative. Ditto for lying.
Just a second there...
Are you saying that killing is always wrong because its net effect on
society is always negative?
Sorry, I for one cannot buy that premise. It seems to me that killing
someone who attacks you without cause would have a positive net effect
on society.
-nolan
Wayne Johnson
>> Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
> Maybe you missed this , the Canadian constitution starts with the words
>'The supremacy of God and the rule of Law' , Canada is VERY much a Christian nation
>for better or worse.
>L8r, Coppertop
Uh...which God, the Judeo-Christian one or the Moslem one? Or the
Jewish one? Is Buddha mentioned? Or Jesus?
David MacLean
kei...@bctv.com (Keith Wood) wrote:
>In article <4ekelo$q...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>[started to move and to start the stopwatch, a man with a gun could
>[have pulled the trigger.
>
>Actually, the reaction time of the observer will be higher than for the man
>with the gun. The observer has this mindset:
>
>". . .can I punch the button? Can I? Can I? Can I? YES!"
>
>
>The guy with the gun:
>
>"I want to take him prisoner, so I can't shoot unless he does something. I
>want to take him prisoner, so I can't shoot unless he does something. I want
>to take him prisoner -- WHAT the hell is he DOING?! Doesn't he know that I've
>got a GUN?!"
>
>As you can see, mindset is a major factor.
>
Come now. You are attempting to put the mindset of an officer in an actual
situation to the artificial situation created in the training scenario. In
the scenario, the trainee is *not* saying to himself "I want to take him
prisoner" since that is not part of the scenario, nor is he saying "WHAT
the hell is he DOING?!" since the scenario is set up so that the trainee
*knows* that the man *will* attack. And he is definately not saying
"Doesn't he know that I've got a GUN?!" because all that he has is a
stupid plastic suction cup dart gun.
But this is indicative of why this scenario and its "results" are taken
so seriously; people tend to translate it *all* to the "real" situation,
when as a model, only *some* factors translate, and if it is a rotten
model, even these do not translate well.
>[Yes, it all happens "quickly", but a plastic dart gun is not a reasonable
>[substitute for a 9mm if you want to demonstrate what would "really" happen,
>[for a bullet, kills, or if off centre, imposes torque, spinning the victim.
>
>Not much inertia in a 9mm. And I'm not willing to bet my life that even the
>.45 I carry will stop him if I let him get too close.
>
No matter how "little" inertia (or more correctly, kinetic energy) in
a 9mm slug compared with other calibre firearm ammunition, it has orders
of magnitude greater kinetic energy than a suction cup dart. A rushing
man hit by such a dart barely notices it; a 9mm slug he does notice.
>[If you are so sure of the results, then instead of the rubber knife and
>[dart gun routine, let's make it a real knife and a real gun - you take
>[the knife, I'll take the gun. 20 feet separation. You can start when ready.
>
>At 20 ft, YOU will LOSE. At 25 feet, you will PROBABLY lose.
>
Then you accept my challenge? Arrange a spot.
>This is real world, well known among those of us to whom this information is
>important.
Keith, are you sure this is information and not just opinion and biased
conjecture?
David MacLean
tmo...@BIX.com (Timothy Morris) wrote:
>You have just proven the bumble bee can't fly. You are ignoring things like
>adrenaline rush and the effect of _lunging_, among other.
>
>Look, I've been there, I've seen the example done, and I've been in the
>demo. _I_ played the cop, and I did get a shot off, but I also got hit,
>pretty hard, with the rubber knife. Some people don't even get the shot off
>before the knifeman gets to them.
>
I've been there. I've seen the example done, and I've been in the demo.
The scenario is appropriate for putting the fear of God into a trainee,
nothing more.
David MacLean
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>: saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>: >Minimizing the casualties is not a sensible objective. It is a
>: >desireable side effect. There is an *enourmous* difference between that two.
>
>: In a purportedly "Christian" nations, whose laws are based on the strictures
>: laid down in the bible, minimization of casualties is not a *sensible*
>: objective? Why not? Because you say so? Because it has not been an
>: objective *so far*?
>
>Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
>
>I am most definately not a Christian, and do not recognize Christianity
>as having an particular moral authority.
>
>It's not a sensible objective because it doesn't work.
>
Sorry, but I am just as Canadian as you are. I know Queen's, because I
went to RMC.
And saying that Canada is not a Christian nations ignores that the formal
morality as enshrined in our Criminal Code is basically a Christian
morality. Our sexual mores and indeed our sexual laws are based on
Christian ethics and theology. What we consider "fair" and "proper"
are based on Christian beliefs.
And even if you *say* that you do not recognize Christianity as having
any particular moral authority, yet when it comes to crime and punishment,
you adopt the "norm", which is basically Christian.
>What works is making the cost of 'defecting' - acting in a way that
>places personal preference ahead of other people's essentially
>equivalent right to exist unmolested - intolerably high. Anyone with
>half a clue will subsequently refrain, and the number of people who get
>shot tends to go down.
>
Which assumes, of course, that all people evaluate the "cost" in a
similar manner.
>It's also necessary to provide people with some other options for how to
>exist in society, but that's a seperate can of worms.
>
>: If minimization of casualties is not a sensible objective, then why is
>: murder considered to be a more heinous crime than theft?
>
>Becuase it's a more extreme case of acting in a way that places personal
>preferences ahead of other people's essentially equivalent right to exist.
>
Yet, this junkie who has merely threatened voids his right to exist?
>: >It takes a public policy, vigorously enforeced, that officers of the law
>: >caught in violation of their oath will be punished. (I would prefer to
>: >treat 'violation of oath of public service that involves commission of a
>: >felony or worse' as a capital crime.)
>
>: And who would enforce this felony? The police themselves? If you were a
>: cop, would you turn in your partner, a man that you had lived and worked
>: with for years, to the possibility of the gas chamber?
>
>If I don't, I too deserve death.
>
>You can set the system up so that there is a reasonable chance such
>members of the constabulary will be tried; this suffices.
>
When the only evidence that is likely to be able to be used to convict
in the testimony of those, who by training and temperment are loyal to
their partners, how are you going to "set the system up"? Hell,
it has been demonstrated that the boys in blue are reluctant to come
forward when their fellow officers are breaking existing laws such
as selling dope, I cannot envision a system where a cop will turn
in another to be hung, literally.
Please elucidate.
>: >The goal of that sort of training is to increase the chances of the
>: >member of the constabulary living through that sort of situation, mostly
>: >by convincing them that getting into that sort of situation in the first
>: >place is a very bad idea.
>
>: His greatest chance of living through that sort of situation is to not
>: get into that situation in the first place. If a cop is chasing a criminal,
>: and corners him, then that in itself should be warning enough; nothing
>: fights harder than a cornered rat.
>
>The constable is not entitled to let the criminal go.
>
Who said anything about letting him go. Back up and call for back up.
>This disposes of their greatest chance of avoiding harm, you are quite
>correct. So? The reason the constable is in uniform and armed is to
>catch the criminal; if you just want to let the criminal go, you don't
>bother paying for all those uniformed members of the constabulary.
>
Ah, so we pay them to kill. I see.
>: >This happens to involve the knife wielding junkie getting shot; that is a
>: >side effect, not the goal.
>
>: No, that is the GOAL of the training, to bring the fear of God into the
>: recruit and cause him to chose the shoot option automatically.
>
>Ever seen or taken police training?
>
I've taken military training, I've seen police training. Not much
difference except for the "book learning".
>'Shooting automatically' is not an accurate description of any of the
>bits I've seen. More like 'shoot if you absolutely cannot avoid it.'
>
Then you haven't seen much. The purpose of the exercise is to raise the
fear level, and to let the training become like instinct.
>: It is you, sir, that have a flawed understanding of the goal of that
>: training scenario, which is understandable since those who face that
>: training scenario are seldom aware of the goal.
>
>I've encounted that scenario in four different places - military
>sneak-up-and-slit-their-throats training, a martial arts class, a women's
>self defence course run by someone with a bad, bad case of Disney
>Chemical poisoning (break and run, rather than break, disable, and run),
>and in the data that came out of a university of Montreal study that
>really wanted to prove that pepper spray was effective, but couldn't.
>
>Guess what?
>
>They all agree on a few things.
>
>1) Moving away fast enough to never come within knife reach is very hard.
If moving in the opposite direction.
>2) Reacting fast enough to hit the person closing with the knife first
>with a ranged weapon is pretty much impossible if the start positions are
>less than 8 m apart.
>
Based on timed studies which do not account for the timers reaction time,
based on studies where there are only two presented options,
based on studies where the results are prearranged.
>You may not *like* this, but you're stuck with it.
>
No, SOCIETY is stuck with it. Whether it is the best thing for society
is the question that I'm raising.
Any *you're* stuck with that.
David MacLean
nola...@twave.net (Nolan Jarvis) wrote:
[deletia]
>What, in the name of common sense, has this knife-wielding "bad-guy"
>done to earn an extraordinary effort to avoid shooting him, at an
>increased risk to the cop?
>
By dint of this knife-wielding "bad-guy" being a human being.
>Why should the cop make any effort whatsoever to avoid the attack when
>he/she has the means at hand to put a stop to it?
>
Because he must assume some responsibility for turning it into a
"confrontation".
>If an assailant came at me with a knife, with the apparent intention
>of using it, if I had the means at hand to kill him on the spot, I
>would do it without a second thought.
You did not chase this man into a corner. You do not threaten his escape.
>_He_ accepted that risk when he
>made his move. (The classic mistake of bringing a knife to a
>gunfight.)
And the *cop* accepted the risk when he put on the badge.
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4eoi5a$m...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>The likelihood of punishment
>>>may discourage the shooting from happening at all. However, duels are
>>>legal, and not punished; this effect might give a victim a greater chance of
>>>surviving in a duelless society--after all, no shooting at all is safer than
>>>one in a duel.
>>Once again, you demonstrate a perhaps unconscious belief that if it were not
>>for "the law", mankind descends into savagery. But people do not kill
>>because it is against the law; people do not kill because of their firmly
>>held beliefs that killing is wrong.
>
>Your fallacy here is in going from "it isn't the law which keeps you and I
>and many other people from killing" to "it isn't the law which keeps everyone
>from killing". This is not a valid conclusion; it is quite possible that
>1) most people would not kill regardless of the law, and 2) most killings
>are prevented by laws discouraging people from killing. Both at the same
>time.
>
True, as stated. However, you have no proof that point 2 is correct, and
since our studies of societies that do not have "laws" against killing
others is strictly limited, we are dealing in supposition and opinion,
not fact.
>>And while we are adding up casualties, would an executive be more or less
>>careful of the safety of his company's product if, instead of being tied
>>up in lawsuits where the best lawyer wins, there is a very real chance that
>>he will have to defend his decisions with his life?
>
>You'd get a lot fewer products that way. Because when a product goes to mil-
>lions of people, it's guaranteed, just by chance, that _someone_ will be
>pissed off for no adequate reason and kill the executive. Would you make a
>product knowing that, even if it's safe, _every single one_ of millions of
>people has to be absolutely sane, or else you die?
>
But you are arguing utility here. What I am saying is that when one is
held personally responsible for all of one's actions, your actions are
likely to be different than if you can slough of that responsibility.
>And heaven forbid you create a product that's not absolutely safe. You build
>your lawn mower, put on warnings against improper use, build in attachments
>to keep people from misusing it, etc. Then some fool buys it, uses it
>against the instructions, breaks off the safety attachments, then loses a
>finger in it. So he shoots you instead of filing a frivolous lawsuit.
>
Somebody being stupid with a product is likely to kill himself.
He would be in no position to kill the executive. If he did not die,
his demonstrated stupidity would put him at a disadvantage in a duel.
However, if a product, used according to direction, and maintained according
to direction, kills a family member by wont of an executive's decision to
use a cheaper, defective part to save money, then that executive would be
held personally responsible and asked to defend his decision - with his
life.
>>>Of course, you might require that both parties in a duel assent to the duel,
>>>solving the above problem. But then there's another problem: why would the
>>>shooter bother to ask for a duel at all? After all, _he_ wants to reduce his
>>>risk too. If the duel is actually better for the victim because it gives the
>>>victim a greater chance of being able to shoot back, it is worse for the
>>>shooter for exactly the same reason.
>>With the safety valve of the duel, most disputes would not fester until
>>the they reached the killing stage. The risk of a duel would be very
>>real, whereas the risk of murder is unreal; after all, it's against the
>>law, isn't it?
>
>What safety valve? If the duel is optional for both sides, there won't _be_
>any duels if everyone assesses the situation accurately. Assassination will
>be better for one side (and a duel worse), and worse for the other side (and a
>duel better). The side for whom assassination is better (whether it's better
>to the victim because he thinks it's less likely, or whether it's better to
>the attacker) will reject the duel.
>
But then it goes to the courts, and the refusal of the duel could be taken
as indicative of the refusor's belief that he is in the wrong. Cases would
be shorter, and, more just.
>It can't be a safety valve if it never comes up.
>
The ability to challenge, even if refused, can be used to direct a court
to what is just, not who has the best lawyer.
>>>As for "no coercion", recall that Lunar society is supposed to do a _lot_ of
>>>things by societal pressures. Societal pressures that say that certain types
>>>of disputes are to be resolved by duels would be just as strong as societal
>>>pressures for "good" things.
>>This presupposes an absolute "good", rather than a "good" relative to the
>>society in question. This, I believe, may be our fundamental disagreement.
>>Behind all your comments is the belief in some things that are "good"
>>absolutely, and some things that are "bad" absolutely.
>
>My comments don't need to be interpreted as absolutes--I did mention "good",
>but whether the other acts are "good" is actually irrelevant; it's just that
>I got a little irony (at the cost of clarity) by adding the word.
>
No, once again, arguing that a societal opinion is "bad" entails judging
that society by a moral code outside that of the judged society. In other
words, the moral code used to judge societal opinion must be considered
somehow superior to the moral code used to come to that societal opinion.
This implies moral absolutism.
>Lunar society does a lot of things by societal pressures. Why aren't there
>also societal pressures for duels? (pressure of a type I would call
>'coercion') See? No "good" or "bad" there.
Incorrect, Ken, since by your use of "coercion" implies "bad".
Wayne Johnson
>Wayne Johnson (cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
>: > A fight at an agreed upon place or time isn't a duel. There's more
>: > to it than that. Otherwise you're in the absurd position of saying
>: > every society countenances dueling.
>: duel: a prearranged combat between two persons, fought with deadly
>: weapons according to and accepted code of procedure, esp. to settle a
>: private quarrel.
>: -The Random House College Dictionary
>: Sounds like a duel to me.
>It sure doesn't to me. A "fight at an agreed upon place or time"
>doesn't imply that weapons are used, or, if they are used, that they
>are deadly. That's what's separates a fist-fight out behind the
>junior high school from Aaron Burr vs. Alexander Hamilton.
I think you missed the original post, where the example of the fight
was a scheduled contest between John Wesley Hardin and another maniac.
They were to dig a grave-sized hole, jump in, and fight it out with
knives. According to the dictionary, this very much qualifies as a
duel.
Nobody was talking about after-school fisticuffs.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Graydon
: R. A. Holt <rah...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
: >> Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
: > Maybe you missed this , the Canadian constitution starts with the words
: >'The supremacy of God and the rule of Law' , Canada is VERY much a Christian nation
: >for better or worse.
: Uh...which God, the Judeo-Christian one or the Moslem one? Or the
: Jewish one? Is Buddha mentioned? Or Jesus?
More to the point, people challenging imposition of Christian customs on
Charter grounds have been winning.
Queen's, founded as a seminary for the Presbityrian Church, has just
recieved Parlimentary approval to take the sentences out of its charter
that define it as a Christian school.
Josh Kaderlan
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4eqj96$9...@knot.queensu.ca>
>saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>>I've encounted that scenario in four different places - military
>>sneak-up-and-slit-their-throats training, a martial arts class, a women's
>>self defence course run by someone with a bad, bad case of Disney
>>Chemical poisoning (break and run, rather than break, disable, and run),
>>and in the data that came out of a university of Montreal study that
>>really wanted to prove that pepper spray was effective, but couldn't.
>>
>>
>>with a ranged weapon is pretty much impossible if the start positions are
>>less than 8 m apart.
>>
>
>Based on timed studies which do not account for the timers reaction time,
>based on studies where there are only two presented options,
>based on studies where the results are prearranged.
>
demonstrations and the data Graydon refers to?
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>>Once again, you demonstrate a perhaps unconscious belief that if it were not
>>for "the law", mankind descends into savagery. But people do not kill
>>because it is against the law; people do not kill because of their firmly
>>held beliefs that killing is wrong.
>
>mind why. I didn't do it, because I thought that the law would not
>understand. (It would have been considered "gang related", though I
>despise gangs and always have, and have never been in one - the
>gangster being discussed is now a celebrated resident on San Quentin's
>Death Row.)
>
>I sure didn't think blowing this person away was wrong. Time proved
>me right, since he was later convicted of one murder and was known to
>have committed several others. I just didn't need to do time for his
>death - a selfish move on my part, since the wrong he committed for
>which I was ready to kill had happened to someone else close to me -
>and I walked away.
>
>The law is a powerful motivation for those raised to respect and fear
>it. It is all that stands between some folks and the yawing chasm of
>murder. Remove the penalty and see how many moral angels you find.
Wayne, this is rationalization. The law didn't stop you; you stopped you.
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>And while we are adding up casualties, would an executive be more or less
>>>careful of the safety of his company's product if, instead of being tied
>>>up in lawsuits where the best lawyer wins, there is a very real chance that
>>>he will have to defend his decisions with his life?
>>You'd get a lot fewer products that way. Because when a product goes to mil-
>>lions of people, it's guaranteed, just by chance, that _someone_ will be
>>pissed off for no adequate reason and kill the executive. Would you make a
>>product knowing that, even if it's safe, _every single one_ of millions of
>>people has to be absolutely sane, or else you die?
>But you are arguing utility here. What I am saying is that when one is
>held personally responsible for all of one's actions, your actions are
>likely to be different than if you can slough of that responsibility.
Well, so? If I get a hole in an automobile tire, my actions are also
different. (I replace the tire, an action I probably would not perform if
the tire weren't flat).
Almost anything at all is going to affect people's actions, so it's not obvi-
ous why this one's so noteworthy. Do you mean that the executive will be more
careful of needless dangers, perhaps, rather than just a general "his actions
are affected"? If in fact you do have this more specific meaning in mind,
then as I pointed out, your suggestion allows him to be shot for _any_ _per-
ceived_ danger at all (rather than just real dangers or real needless
dangers).
>Somebody being stupid with a product is likely to kill himself.
>He would be in no position to kill the executive. If he did not die,
>his demonstrated stupidity would put him at a disadvantage in a duel.
Stupidity is not a global thing, where stupidity in one area implies stupidity
in every area. There is no reason to believe that because someone is stupid
enough to remove the safety precautions on his lawn mower he is automatically
bad at dueling; these are quite different things. (It's even worse when you
consider his friends and relatives may shoot you instead. Or are you going to
tell me that choosing as a friend someone who would use a lawn mower
dangerously, also makes someone bad at dueling?)
>>>With the safety valve of the duel, most disputes would not fester until
>>>the they reached the killing stage. The risk of a duel would be very
>>>real, whereas the risk of murder is unreal; after all, it's against the
>>>law, isn't it?
>>What safety valve? If the duel is optional for both sides, there won't _be_
>>any duels if everyone assesses the situation accurately. Assassination will
>>be better for one side (and a duel worse), and worse for the other side (and a
>>duel better). The side for whom assassination is better (whether it's better
>>to the victim because he thinks it's less likely, or whether it's better to
>>the attacker) will reject the duel.
>But then it goes to the courts, and the refusal of the duel could be taken
>as indicative of the refusor's belief that he is in the wrong. Cases would
>be shorter, and, more just.
Wait.
Aside from the question of where these courts come from, you just told me
that refusing a duel could be taken to indicate the refusor's belief that
he's wrong. Yet, you also think the duels are entered without coercion?
How fair can a duel be if you realize that not entering the duel is going
to get you dragged in front of a citizens' committee with your refusal to
duel being considered evidence of guilt?
Ken Arromdee
>arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>> >> Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
>> > Maybe you missed this , the Canadian constitution starts with the words
>> >'The supremacy of God and the rule of Law' , Canada is VERY much a Christian nation
>> >for better or worse.
>> Christian.
Then why doesn't it say "the supermacy of Jesus Christ"?
R. A. Holt
> In article <4etnfe$h...@news.nstn.ca>, R. A. Holt <rah...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> >> Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
> > Maybe you missed this , the Canadian constitution starts with the words
> >'The supremacy of God and the rule of Law' , Canada is VERY much a Christian nation
> >for better or worse.
>
> I have news for you. There are people who believe in God but are not
> Christian.
> Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
> http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
>
> "Snow?" "It's sort of like white, lumpy, rain." --Gilligan's Island
The God mentioned in the constitution is the Judeo Christian God therby making Canada
a Christian nation with its laws bound by many of the moral ethical codes found in the
Bible. That I disagree with many of them is irrelevant, that's the way it is. I never
said you had be Christian to belive in God, only that Canada is a Christian country.
I am NOT a what you would call a Christian even in the loosest(sp ?) sense of
the word; however I recognize that the country in which I live, is Christian.
That is to say Christians make up the majority of the population, and dictate
most of the laws.
l*r,
Coppertop
Wayne Johnson
>In article <4ep7u0$5...@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
>cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>>
>>>Once again, you demonstrate a perhaps unconscious belief that if it were not
>>>for "the law", mankind descends into savagery. But people do not kill
>>>because it is against the law; people do not kill because of their firmly
>>>held beliefs that killing is wrong.
>>
>>I once had a clear chance to kill someone who needed killing; never
>>mind why. I didn't do it, because I thought that the law would not
>>understand. (It would have been considered "gang related", though I
>>despise gangs and always have, and have never been in one - the
>>gangster being discussed is now a celebrated resident on San Quentin's
>>Death Row.)
>>
>>I sure didn't think blowing this person away was wrong. Time proved
>>me right, since he was later convicted of one murder and was known to
>>have committed several others. I just didn't need to do time for his
>>death - a selfish move on my part, since the wrong he committed for
>>which I was ready to kill had happened to someone else close to me -
>>and I walked away.
>>
>>The law is a powerful motivation for those raised to respect and fear
>>it. It is all that stands between some folks and the yawing chasm of
>>murder. Remove the penalty and see how many moral angels you find.
>Wayne, this is rationalization. The law didn't stop you; you stopped you.
True. I'm not a killer. I didn't want to kill, and didn't. The law
provided that rationalization.
But realize that the law prevents no one from doing anything. Law is
just an agreement to behave in a certain way, and provides penalties
for disobedience. My rationalization was not based on the existence
of the agreement; it was based on the nature of the penalties.
As a rational being, I had to decide if I would ruin ny life by
disobeying that law.
Realize that my decision was a source of pain for many years, until I
found that the target of my anger was on Death Row (I found out by
accident) and I felt ashamed of my decision, until I found this out.
Still, remove the penalty of law, and I would have killed. Believe me
or not.
This is the same decision, I think, that law enforcement officers face
when apprehending criminals known to have committed heinous crimes. I
mentioned to another group the story of a cop who caught a madman who
had committed a protracted torture murder of a child; he read this
animal's journal while taking him to the police station...and marvels
to this day that the guy got there alive. He had to remember that to
give in to his fury would have cost his family and himself too much,
and still has problems with his decision.
The law is all that prevents more mayhem, not the better nature of
man.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
David MacLean
rob...@octarine.adfa.oz.au (ROBSON BARBARA JANE) wrote:
>>However, I have yet to find a moral absolutist who cannot agree to the
>>fact that there are exceptions to these moral absolutes. Killing is
>>absolutely wrong (except when attacked or at war). Stealing is absolutely
>>wrong (except to feed a starving child). Lying is absolutely wrong (except
>>for an honest answer to your wife's question, "Honey, is my butt getting
>>big?")
>
>
>OK. I hate to put myself in the camp of the moral absolutist (on
>the whole, I'm more convinced by utilitarian principles), but I have
>to say, I think killing is wrong. It is still wrong when you are
>attacked, and it is still wrong if you are at war. However, it
>may in some cases be the lesser of two evils. If person A attacks
>person B with the intent of killing person B, that is wrong. If
>B instead kills A, that is also wrong, but no more so (and possibly
>less so) than the first alternative. Given this, B should not be
>criticised for choosing the option which is best for B, as long as
>there is no third alternative which B could have reasonably taken
>in the circumstances.
>
Do you think that if von Stoffenburg (sp?) had succeeded in killing
Hitler, he would have been wrong? Do you think that if one of the
cruise missiles had found Saddam Hussein, that killing him would have
been wrong?
If you had come across a man who had just killed your (wife, child,
girlfriend, boyfriend), would it be wrong to kill him?
Far from putting yourself into the moral absolutist camp, you have
rationalized relativism so that it *sounds* like absolutism.
>Stealing is not absolutely wrong, it is only usually wrong, because
>its net effects on society are usually negative. Ditto for lying.
>
So killing is the only absolute, but there are degress of the absolutism?
David MacLean
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
[deletia]
>
>True. I'm not a killer. I didn't want to kill, and didn't. The law
>provided that rationalization.
>
But that's not what you said in your previous post; you stated that it was
the law that prevented you from killing.
>But realize that the law prevents no one from doing anything.
But I've been saying that all along. If you do not realize it, you
haven't been listening.
>Law is
>just an agreement to behave in a certain way, and provides penalties
>for disobedience.
Correction. The law is an imposition, not an agreement, for you and I did
not agree before it was imposed; in fact, for most criminal laws, we
were not consulted at all since they were imposed before we were born.
The "social contract" concept is poetic and can be held out as an ideal,
but it breaks down when examined. A "contract" is an agreement freely
entered into. A contract signed under duress is invalid. Yet when
it comes to "the law", you and I have no opportunity to submit or reject
as we see fit, and we follow this "agreement" under threat.
The law may be many things, but it is decidedly not an "agreement".
>My rationalization was not based on the existence
>of the agreement; it was based on the nature of the penalties.
>
But it was still a rationalization. Instead of thinking "this man *needs*
killing" which you stated, you were thinking "this man does not need killing
badly enough for me to do it", which translates to "this man does NOT need
killing".
If, as you say, the man needed killing, then you would have done so, and
when and if caught, you could have trusted in "jury nullification".
>As a rational being, I had to decide if I would ruin ny life by
>disobeying that law.
>
No, again this is a rationalization. Your prime motivation was, as you
said above, you are not a killer.
>Realize that my decision was a source of pain for many years, until I
>found that the target of my anger was on Death Row (I found out by
>accident) and I felt ashamed of my decision, until I found this out.
>
Let me get this straight. You were ashamed of your decision (not to kill
him) until you found out that he was on death row? This does not make
sense. If I found that I had spared the life of a person who then went
out and killed another, I would be more ashamed after I found out that
the man I spared had killed another. If my decision had gone the other
way, his victim would have been alive today.
Wayne, something tells me that you are not being completely candid.
>Still, remove the penalty of law, and I would have killed. Believe me
>or not.
>
Thus saving the man's future victim. Face it Wayne, if the penalty of
law had been removed, you don't *know* what you would have done, since
you have never been in a situation where the penalty of law did not apply.
We can argue back and forth until the cows come home, but it's merely
opinion. And the society in which the penalty of law is removed would
be radically different from the one we live in today - which is my point
about the Loonie society in tMiaHM.
>This is the same decision, I think, that law enforcement officers face
>when apprehending criminals known to have committed heinous crimes. I
>mentioned to another group the story of a cop who caught a madman who
>had committed a protracted torture murder of a child; he read this
>animal's journal while taking him to the police station...and marvels
>to this day that the guy got there alive. He had to remember that to
>give in to his fury would have cost his family and himself too much,
>and still has problems with his decision.
>
If he "still has problems with his decision", then maybe he made the wrong
decision. The trouble is, you can't go back and take a different tack.
>The law is all that prevents more mayhem, not the better nature of
>man.
>
This is supposition on your part, born of a society that actively encourages
you to give up responsibilty for your decisions to the hands of those
in power.
R. A. Holt
> In article <Mb8DxwUN...@bctv.com>
> kei...@bctv.com (Keith Wood) wrote:
> >In article <4ekelo$q...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
> ***************************************************************************
> David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
> ***************************************************************************
>
Instead of a sucker dart gun try a paint ball gun, but freeze the paint balls,
They won't penetrate the skin but will leave a nasty bruise. We have used this
method in my Ju Juitsu class. It does work, as the paint ball IS noticed when
it hits.
L8r, Coppertop
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4ev63q$5...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
[deletia]
>>But you are arguing utility here. What I am saying is that when one is
>>held personally responsible for all of one's actions, your actions are
>>likely to be different than if you can slough of that responsibility.
>
>Well, so? If I get a hole in an automobile tire, my actions are also
>different. (I replace the tire, an action I probably would not perform if
>the tire weren't flat).
>
Ken, you are confusing (deliberately, I feel certain) physical action with
moral action, and also action with reaction.
What you are saying is that my actions (reactions) to a tire blowout are
morally equivalent to the tire executive's decision to use substandard
materials in that tire so that he can increase his profit margin.
>Almost anything at all is going to affect people's actions, so it's not obvi-
>ous why this one's so noteworthy. Do you mean that the executive will be more
>careful of needless dangers, perhaps, rather than just a general "his actions
>are affected"? If in fact you do have this more specific meaning in mind,
>then as I pointed out, your suggestion allows him to be shot for _any_ _per-
>ceived_ danger at all (rather than just real dangers or real needless
>dangers).
>
Correction. It does not "allow him to be shot"; it allows those who perceive
a danger in his decisions to hold him personally responsible for those
decisions.
>>Somebody being stupid with a product is likely to kill himself.
>>He would be in no position to kill the executive. If he did not die,
>>his demonstrated stupidity would put him at a disadvantage in a duel.
>
>Stupidity is not a global thing, where stupidity in one area implies stupidity
>in every area. There is no reason to believe that because someone is stupid
>enough to remove the safety precautions on his lawn mower he is automatically
>bad at dueling; these are quite different things. (It's even worse when you
>consider his friends and relatives may shoot you instead. Or are you going to
>tell me that choosing as a friend someone who would use a lawn mower
>dangerously, also makes someone bad at dueling?)
>
No, I am saying that if someone is stupid enough to deliberately endanger
himself and stupid enough to endanger himself in a duel over his own
stupidity (or that of a friend's) will in the end, get himself killed.
Even if we go by the old dueling code (which I have not said that I support),
the choice of weapons goes to the challenged. Unless you are saying that
such a stupid person who recklessly endangers himself is proficient in all
weapons that all those he challenges would choose, he is eventually going
to get killed.
But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
[deletia]
>Wait.
>
>Aside from the question of where these courts come from, you just told me
>that refusing a duel could be taken to indicate the refusor's belief that
>he's wrong. Yet, you also think the duels are entered without coercion?
No more than court cases are entered without coercion, or taxes are paid
without coercion. But the coercion is equal on both sides.
And I am surprised at your objection to coercion, given your support for
"the law", a coercive force if ever their was one.
>How fair can a duel be if you realize that not entering the duel is going
>to get you dragged in front of a citizens' committee with your refusal to
>duel being considered evidence of guilt?
How "fair" is taxation? How "fair" is strapping a man down and forcing
him to breath cyanide gas?
"Fair" is a moral concept determined by the culture in which one lives.
Looking at the "fairness" of one moral code through the eyes of a different
moral code is, to circle around, unfair.
Wayne Johnson
>Wayne Johnson wrote:
>I'd suggest that you go looking for factual support for your contentions.
>Then, if you wish, we can continue this in mail or in a newsgroup more
>appropiate to the subject.
>--RC
Actually, Rick, your contentions came first; I'd ask you to support
the notion that half of all killings in the U.S. are self defense -
but this is not only not a debate, it has zilch to do with Heinlein.
alt.fan.heinlein is where this discussion started, and it's wandering
off topic, to the dismay of many. If you want to go to e-mail, please
do; start with statistics defending your absurd assumptions.
You spout nonsense, get exposed, and then try to play Net Police. Go
police some other group. I don't need your advice.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Let me get this straight. You were ashamed of your decision (not to kill
>him) until you found out that he was on death row? This does not make
>sense. If I found that I had spared the life of a person who then went
>out and killed another, I would be more ashamed after I found out that
>the man I spared had killed another. If my decision had gone the other
>way, his victim would have been alive today.
Who says he killed _another_? Maybe he was caught for, and convicted
of, killing somebody he had _already_ killed. Then nobody was hurt by
Wayne's failure to kill him.
Seth
David MacLean
R. A. Holt <rah...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
[deletia]
>Instead of a sucker dart gun try a paint ball gun, but freeze the paint balls,
>They won't penetrate the skin but will leave a nasty bruise. We have used this
>method in my Ju Juitsu class. It does work, as the paint ball IS noticed when
>it hits.
>
>L8r, Coppertop
Let's do some back of the envelope estimates, shall we. Let's say that a
9mm slug is about 3 ounces, and a paint ball about half an ounce. Top
speed of the paint ball, *maybe* 90 mph. Speed of the slug is greater
than the speed of sound, so let's estimate 700 mph.
Converting to S.I. units, the paint ball is 0.014 Kg, the slug 0.085 Kg.
The paintball travels at 40.234 m/s and the slug at 312.928 m/s.
Kinetic energy is 0.5 * mass * velocity squared, so the paint ball has
a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.014 * 40.234 * 40.234 = 113.314 Joules.
The slug has a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.085 * 312.928 * 312.928 =
4161.767 Joules, almost 37 times as much, and since the paint ball
does not penetrate and the slug does, the relative energy transfer
is effectively much greater than 37 times for the slug over the paint ball.
If you "notice" the frozen paint ball ("Ouch, that stings!"), how much
more so will you "notice" the slug?
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>What you are saying is that my actions (reactions) to a tire blowout are
>morally equivalent to the tire executive's decision to use substandard
>materials in that tire so that he can increase his profit margin.
My tire example had nothing to do with moral equivalence and everything to
do with bad writing. Your statement about "actions" was meaningless as it
stood; the only way to make sense out of it was to read into it things you
didn't explicitly say, and you could then reply that I was putting words into
your mouth.
>No, I am saying that if someone is stupid enough to deliberately endanger
>himself and stupid enough to endanger himself in a duel over his own
>stupidity (or that of a friend's) will in the end, get himself killed.
There are new people coming into the world all the time.
Even granting that stupid people will eventually kill themselves, this will
not lead to a complete absence of stupid people in the world; rather it will
lead to a steady state where there is a constant percentage of stupid people
that is lower than the percentage of stupid people among new adults.
Therefore, because stupid people eventually kill themselves, does _not_ mean
that there will be no remaining stupid people for the executive to worry
about. And even if the lifespan of stupid people (counting from the age of
majority) is a tenth of that of smart people, and even if only a tenth of all
people start out stupid, that still means that in a million people, you'll
have ten thousand stupid people that haven't killed themselves yet. Let's
further say, for the sake of argument, that only a tenth of _these_ get into
lawn mower accidents. That's still a thousand people.
(Actually, this math is an oversimplification--can anyone see how?--but the
minor difference doesn't matter.)
No executive would produce any product if it gave a thousand people reasons
to shoot him.
>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
But the executive will have to withstand a thousand "equal chance" challenges.
It is essentially certain that he will die, just from being challenged by the
stupid people who blame him.
>>Aside from the question of where these courts come from, you just told me
>>that refusing a duel could be taken to indicate the refusor's belief that
>>he's wrong. Yet, you also think the duels are entered without coercion?
>No more than court cases are entered without coercion, or taxes are paid
>without coercion. But the coercion is equal on both sides.
>And I am surprised at your objection to coercion, given your support for
>"the law", a coercive force if ever their was one.
What _I_ think of coercion is irrelevant--I'm pointing out inconsistency.
Earlier, in <4ee460$9...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>, you wrote the following:
>I can see a definate societal interest in insuring that neither of the
>participants in a duel are coerced into something that they stand little
>chance of succeeding in. But if no coersion exists and both are willing
>participants, what is society's interest in forbidding the duel?
The clear implication of the above is that duels involve no coercion, and
are only allowed because they involve no coercion. If you now tell me that
refusal to duel is taken to be evidence of guilt, you are contradicting
yourself, because that is coercion.
>>How fair can a duel be if you realize that not entering the duel is going
>>to get you dragged in front of a citizens' committee with your refusal to
>>duel being considered evidence of guilt?
>How "fair" is taxation? How "fair" is strapping a man down and forcing
>him to breath cyanide gas?
>"Fair" is a moral concept determined by the culture in which one lives.
>Looking at the "fairness" of one moral code through the eyes of a different
>moral code is, to circle around, unfair.
If you are merely stating that the society is internally self-consistent, then
of course it is, but this is a very uninteresting thing to tell say Even the
society of the Nazis is self-consistent, if you don't ask how fair it is to
make people into lampshades.
Everything you have said before, though, suggests the opposite: thieves and
thugs don't get free reign, and people who aren't thieves and thugs are not
punished. In other words, you are indeed implying Lunar fairness. (And I
think it's pretty obvious that Heinlein meant to imply that his system was
fair.)
Seth Breidbart
I'd think that, these days, any such studies would be done on
videotape, so the frames could be counted later (and there'd be no
problem with reaction times of the timer).
>based on studies where there are only two presented options,
Which, presumably, should _increase_ the speed of the person shooting,
right?
>based on studies where the results are prearranged.
Huh? You mean the _timing_ results, or the actions taken?
Seth
R. A. Holt
> In article <4f0ka9$9...@news.nstn.ca>, R. A. Holt <rah...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> >arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >> >> Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
> >> > Maybe you missed this , the Canadian constitution starts with the words
> >> >'The supremacy of God and the rule of Law' , Canada is VERY much a Christian nation
> >> >for better or worse.
> >> I have news for you. There are people who believe in God but are not
> >> Christian.
>
> Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
> http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
>
> "Snow?" "It's sort of like white, lumpy, rain." --Gilligan's Island
The fathers of confederation wanted it that way.
Coppertop
R. A. Holt
> R. A. Holt <rah...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Canada is not a Christian nation. (thankfully.)
> > Maybe you missed this , the Canadian constitution starts with the words
> >'The supremacy of God and the rule of Law' , Canada is VERY much a Christian nation
> >for better or worse.
>
>
> Uh...which God, the Judeo-Christian one or the Moslem one? Or the
> Jewish one? Is Buddha mentioned? Or Jesus?
>
>
>
other than the Judeo Christian God.
L8r, Coppertop
Wayne Johnson
>Let me get this straight. You were ashamed of your decision (not to kill
>him) until you found out that he was on death row? This does not make
>sense. If I found that I had spared the life of a person who then went
>out and killed another, I would be more ashamed after I found out that
>the man I spared had killed another. If my decision had gone the other
>way, his victim would have been alive today.
>Wayne, something tells me that you are not being completely candid.
You're right. For very good reasons, I assure you. Let me make a
simple point: My decision was based, as many were, partially on the
fact that I had too heavy a dose of Heinlein as a child.
It's not a case of my "sparing a life". I was never taught that lives
are mine to spare, or take, according to my needs or wishes. It was
hatred and anger that led me to the pass; and love for my family and
myself that got me through it.
The creature in question had had two (inconclusive) fights with me;
being unsuccessful with these, he had his friends proceed to beat a
small and harmless friend to a pulp when I wasn't there. My friend
was nearly killed.
Had I acted on my impulse, I can say without question that the history
of urban violence in Los Angeles would be profoundly different. My
own life would have been ruined, as would the lives of my family; I
would have been imprisoned, if successful, and dead, if not. Since
this was not a reasonable set of choices, I opted for reason and
stayed within the law.
Now, before I hear how ashamed I should be for not sacrificing my
life, I must say my temperance was matched by a number of other
non-vigilantes who also thought the law should have dealt with this
fella. Just for your information, he was co-founder of the Crips
gang. The year: 1971.
Was I responsible for the lives of his future victims? Of course not.
I'm no "Terminator", subject to performing "retroactive abortions". I
am neither judge nor jury nor executioner. It is a pleasant fantasy
to imagine being such, but it isn't realistic. Such fantasies are
what fuel the cycle of urban violence today.
Your statement sounds like that of a home boy out for revenge. I've
heard it a thousand times. Just because it's origin is Canada, and
not southeast Los Angeles, does not make it less ridiculous.
>Thus saving the man's future victim. Face it Wayne, if the penalty of
>law had been removed, you don't *know* what you would have done, since
>you have never been in a situation where the penalty of law did not apply.
>We can argue back and forth until the cows come home, but it's merely
>opinion. And the society in which the penalty of law is removed would
>be radically different from the one we live in today - which is my point
>about the Loonie society in tMiaHM.
The Loonie society sounds like the barren Lunar landscape of the
ghetto here in my hometown, which is why I don't subscribe to the
fantasy. The idea that codified law isn't necessary for human
cooperation is fine; but when this system goes into practice, the
innocent start dropping like flies, for some reason, and the animals
take advantage. Let's say I belled the cat, or slew the giant, or
whatever. I would have become that which I hated - a killer,
justifying the taking of life based on my own criteria. I haven't
the ego to make these decisions lightly. At 17 no one should.
>>This is the same decision, I think, that law enforcement officers face
>>when apprehending criminals known to have committed heinous crimes. I
>>mentioned to another group the story of a cop who caught a madman who
>>had committed a protracted torture murder of a child; he read this
>>animal's journal while taking him to the police station...and marvels
>>to this day that the guy got there alive. He had to remember that to
>>give in to his fury would have cost his family and himself too much,
>>and still has problems with his decision.
>>
>If he "still has problems with his decision", then maybe he made the wrong
>decision. The trouble is, you can't go back and take a different tack.
A cop makes the decision not to murder his arrestee, and you think he
made the wrong decision? The social contract means that little to
you?
>>The law is all that prevents more mayhem, not the better nature of
>>man.
>This is supposition on your part, born of a society that actively encourages
>you to give up responsibilty for your decisions to the hands of those
>in power.
I think that society actively encourages me to share the power, not
give it up. I am asked to vote; I can run for elected office, or a
judgeship; I can volunteer to enforce the laws, in a uniform; and so
forth. To say that I simply give up responsibility, because I don't
use vigilante justice (even when objectively justified), is to vastly
oversimplify the matter.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
David MacLean
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <4ev64b$5...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>videotape, so the frames could be counted later (and there'd be no
>problem with reaction times of the timer).
>
But "these days", they are no longer "studies" but training exercises.
Nobody is looking into the nature of the exercise, and it is *not* designed
to test reaction time.
Videotape would ruin the entire scenario, since in most cases, the tape
would show very clearly that the dart hit the attacker before the attacker
hit the "victim". A 9mm slug is much more "discouraging" to the attacker
than a suction cup plastic dart.
>>based on studies where there are only two presented options,
>
>Which, presumably, should _increase_ the speed of the person shooting,
>right?
>
Once again you get to the root of my problem with the exercise. The emphasis
is "shoot or get stabbed". And you are the victim of this type of thinking
just as much as anybody, Seth, since you are using the exercise as
justification for killing or at least very gravely injuring another person.
Sidestepping never enters your mind, or, if it does, is quickly dismissed.
>>based on studies where the results are prearranged.
>
>Huh? You mean the _timing_ results, or the actions taken?
The actions taken. Really Seth, you sound like I've just stolen your
favorite dolly. If you just sat down and thought it through, instead of
reacting in a blind rage, you would find that you have been fooled.
And I realize that nobody likes to think that they have been fooled, which
is perhaps the reason that con men are so successful.
R. A. Holt
> In article <4f3itn$2...@news.nstn.ca>
>
> >Instead of a sucker dart gun try a paint ball gun, but freeze the paint balls,
> >They won't penetrate the skin but will leave a nasty bruise. We have used this
> >method in my Ju Juitsu class. It does work, as the paint ball IS noticed when
> >it hits.
> >
> >L8r, Coppertop
>
> Let's do some back of the envelope estimates, shall we. Let's say that a
> 9mm slug is about 3 ounces, and a paint ball about half an ounce. Top
> speed of the paint ball, *maybe* 90 mph. Speed of the slug is greater
> than the speed of sound, so let's estimate 700 mph.
>
> Converting to S.I. units, the paint ball is 0.014 Kg, the slug 0.085 Kg.
> The paintball travels at 40.234 m/s and the slug at 312.928 m/s.
>
> Kinetic energy is 0.5 * mass * velocity squared, so the paint ball has
> a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.014 * 40.234 * 40.234 = 113.314 Joules.
> The slug has a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.085 * 312.928 * 312.928 =
> 4161.767 Joules, almost 37 times as much, and since the paint ball
> does not penetrate and the slug does, the relative energy transfer
> is effectively much greater than 37 times for the slug over the paint ball.
>
> If you "notice" the frozen paint ball ("Ouch, that stings!"), how much
> more so will you "notice" the slug?
>
> ***************************************************************************
> David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
> ***************************************************************************
>
facisimile there of. The point after all is not to kill the person your are
training with. Fyi I have been shot with a real bullet , a .22 cal , in a hunting
accident and with a paint ball. The paint ball hurt more( at first anyway).
The impact of the bullet numbs the area it hits , at first. So for training
purposes its not bad, not great but not bad.
L8r, Coppertop
R. A. Holt
> ***************************************************************************
> David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
> ***************************************************************************
>
in his holster, the kind with the snap on it. Most people will cover 8m in the
time it takes you to DRAW the gun , aim it and fire it. Obviously the cop should
have some other recourse ,such as his back up ,(partner)martial arts, side stepping
running or whatever.
L8r , Coppertop
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
So if somebody is terminally ill, he has a 50% chance of taking
someone he doesn't like with him? (And if he has a large list, the
expected number of others he gets to kill is 1.)
Seth
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>What you are saying is that my actions (reactions) to a tire blowout are
>>morally equivalent to the tire executive's decision to use substandard
>>materials in that tire so that he can increase his profit margin.
>
>My tire example had nothing to do with moral equivalence and everything to
>do with bad writing. Your statement about "actions" was meaningless as it
>stood; the only way to make sense out of it was to read into it things you
>didn't explicitly say, and you could then reply that I was putting words into
>your mouth.
>
Ken, I would not accuse you of putting words in my mouth unless there was
a deliberate attempt on your part to do so; I might accuse you of
misunderstanding, but putting words in my mouth? Highly unlikely, since
in our corresponse, you have yet to do so.
By the same token, I have never accused you of putting words in my mouth,
and therefore, it seems unfair that you are less than candid because you
believe that I might do so, and resort to rhetorical trickery based on
what I might do in the future.
I have little patience with those who insist that their truths are universal
truths but cannot explain why they think think that their notions are true.
This, decidedly, does not describe you. You have defended your notions well.
However, if I might be allowed to speculate, we are coming close to the
point where your only defense is a stubborn "because it's true". You may
be unwilling to step beyond that point, but does that mean that you are
unable to?
>>No, I am saying that if someone is stupid enough to deliberately endanger
>>himself and stupid enough to endanger himself in a duel over his own
>>stupidity (or that of a friend's) will in the end, get himself killed.
>
>There are new people coming into the world all the time.
>
>Even granting that stupid people will eventually kill themselves, this will
>not lead to a complete absence of stupid people in the world; rather it will
>lead to a steady state where there is a constant percentage of stupid people
>that is lower than the percentage of stupid people among new adults.
>
But we are dealing with two classes of people here, Ken. The first is the
class of truly stupid, those who stubbornly refuse to learn, and the second
is the class of merely ignorant, those who have not learned, but with no
inherant predisposition to continue in that state. The first class is
internally motivated, the second lack any motivation at all, and are
supported in their ignorance by a society which allows them to get away
with it. In our current society, one class is pragmatically indistinguishable
from the other.
However, in a society that allows dueling, the classes become distinct, and
further, members of the first class are killed off more quickly than
currently. And if there is a genetic factor (note the *if*) in membership
in that first class, then the next generation would have fewer members
of the first class.
>Therefore, because stupid people eventually kill themselves, does _not_ mean
>that there will be no remaining stupid people for the executive to worry
>about. And even if the lifespan of stupid people (counting from the age of
>majority) is a tenth of that of smart people, and even if only a tenth of all
>people start out stupid, that still means that in a million people, you'll
>have ten thousand stupid people that haven't killed themselves yet. Let's
>further say, for the sake of argument, that only a tenth of _these_ get into
>lawn mower accidents. That's still a thousand people.
>
>(Actually, this math is an oversimplification--can anyone see how?--but the
>minor difference doesn't matter.)
>
There are several things wrong with your math, but the thing that you
speak of as an oversimplification is that lack of replacements for the
stupid people who are killed off. In addition, when measuring the risk
to the executive, the risk is a function of lifespan, so if the lifespan
of a stupid person is reduced, the overall risk to the executive is also
reduced. However, that is a problem with many mathmatical models that attempt
to take a static "snapshot" of a dynamic process.
However, your counting from the age of majority is problematic, since
stupid people under the age of majority do kill themselves through their
stupidity. Secondly, your 1/10th figure is merely an assumption on your
part. Thirdly, your 1000 people taken as a risk to the executive, since
of those thousand, not all are "stupid", most are merely ignorant. The
merely ignorant will learn from the accident and blame themselves. Let's
say, to continue your figures, that one tenth of these are so stupid as
to refuse to accept some responsibility for their accident with the lawn
mower. This leaves 100 people. But of these, how many are so stubbornly
stupid as to seriously attempt to challenge the executive to a duel. How
about 1 in 10, leaving 10 people. But of these demonstrably stupid people,
how many are smart enough to get to the executive to issue the challenge,
not abusing underlings so much as to be challenged to a duel by the
underling? One in ten? This leaves one person to issue the challenge.
But the overall risk to the executive is lessened, since the stupid actions
of stupid people are a risk to that executive in our society that does not
have duels; his risk of being hit by a stupid driver, the risk of being
caught in a stupidly started fire, all sorts of other risks that would
be reduced by actively reducing, through duels, stupid people.
>No executive would produce any product if it gave a thousand people reasons
>to shoot him.
>
>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>
>But the executive will have to withstand a thousand "equal chance" challenges.
>It is essentially certain that he will die, just from being challenged by the
>stupid people who blame him.
>
Your math is faulty, Ken. Please reexamine it.
>>>Aside from the question of where these courts come from, you just told me
>>>that refusing a duel could be taken to indicate the refusor's belief that
>>>he's wrong. Yet, you also think the duels are entered without coercion?
>>No more than court cases are entered without coercion, or taxes are paid
>>without coercion. But the coercion is equal on both sides.
>>And I am surprised at your objection to coercion, given your support for
>>"the law", a coercive force if ever their was one.
>
>What _I_ think of coercion is irrelevant--I'm pointing out inconsistency.
>Earlier, in <4ee460$9...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>, you wrote the following:
>
>>I can see a definate societal interest in insuring that neither of the
>>participants in a duel are coerced into something that they stand little
>>chance of succeeding in. But if no coersion exists and both are willing
>>participants, what is society's interest in forbidding the duel?
>
>The clear implication of the above is that duels involve no coercion, and
>are only allowed because they involve no coercion. If you now tell me that
>refusal to duel is taken to be evidence of guilt, you are contradicting
>yourself, because that is coercion.
>
Then let me apologize. I meant no more coercion than normally exists in
a society. If you are saying that refusal to duel, which *might* be accepted
as evidence of culpability (*not* guilt) in a civil suit is as coercive as
"pay your taxes or go to jail", you are really stretching the point.
>>>How fair can a duel be if you realize that not entering the duel is going
>>>to get you dragged in front of a citizens' committee with your refusal to
>>>duel being considered evidence of guilt?
>>How "fair" is taxation? How "fair" is strapping a man down and forcing
>>him to breath cyanide gas?
>>"Fair" is a moral concept determined by the culture in which one lives.
>>Looking at the "fairness" of one moral code through the eyes of a different
>>moral code is, to circle around, unfair.
>
>If you are merely stating that the society is internally self-consistent, then
>of course it is, but this is a very uninteresting thing to tell say Even the
>society of the Nazis is self-consistent, if you don't ask how fair it is to
>make people into lampshades.
>
But yet again, you judge a society on a moral code separate from that internal
to the society. Is it "fair" that you should be forced to pay taxes to
financially support programs that you do not philosophically support? In
a purportedly free society? This is an internal inconsistancy in our
society, so what I am getting at is not societal internal self-consistency.
One "morality" can only be viewed as "wrong" through the eyes of a different
"morality", since right and wrong are moral concepts.
>Everything you have said before, though, suggests the opposite: thieves and
>thugs don't get free reign, and people who aren't thieves and thugs are not
>punished. In other words, you are indeed implying Lunar fairness. (And I
>think it's pretty obvious that Heinlein meant to imply that his system was
>fair.)
But you are confusing general fairness with specific instances of fairness.
I'm certain that while the pressure was dropping, the person described as
heckling the stilyagi Air Corps was thinking "this just ain't fair".
Gary Farber
: The actions taken. Really Seth, you sound like I've just stolen your
: favorite dolly. If you just sat down and thought it through, instead of
: reacting in a blind rage, you would find that you have been fooled.
: And I realize that nobody likes to think that they have been fooled, which
: is perhaps the reason that con men are so successful.
The idea of Seth Breidbart reacting to much of anything in a "blind rage"
is quite amusing. "Supercilious contempt," I could maybe see. :-)
Since you feel so at ease with your personal presumptions, David, I
shan't feel shy about pointing out that you deal with most of your
interlocutors with a very high level of presumptous condescension?
You persist in making assumptions about everyone's beliefs, prejudices,
and feelings, and then you lecture them, usually, so far as I can tell,
informing them of that which they perfectly well know. You consistently
strike the attitude that you have superior knowledge which you will deign
to share with the peons. Gee, some folks on Luna might stuff you out an
airlock after enough of this. Wanna take a count here for that vote? :-)
If you stuck to facts, you'd do better towards convincing anyone; anyone
who is still reading you by now.
Lastly, is there some reason you are still cross-posting this thread to
rec.arts.sf.fandom, no matter how many times you've been asked nicely to
please take it elsewhere? Do you have the delusion that many (or any)
regular readers of this newsgroup want to read this thread? Do you read
this newsgroup? If not, then please follow nettiquette, show us some of
that politeness, quit posting to a newsgroup you don't read, and continue
this discussion elsewhere than rec.arts.sf.fandom. Please. Okay?
Thanks.
--
-- Gary Farber Middlemiss gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 for DUFF Brooklyn, NY, USA
Ulrika O'Brien
>>Huh? You mean the _timing_ results, or the actions taken?
>
>The actions taken. Really Seth, you sound like I've just stolen your
>favorite dolly. If you just sat down and thought it through, instead of
>reacting in a blind rage, you would find that you have been fooled.
I can't help supposing that you utterly mis-read Seth's tone
in the post you're replying to. I saw nothing in it to suggest
that he was doing anything but expressing a desire for clarification.
I certainly didn't see anything in his post to suggest that he
was in a "blind rage," but perhaps your direct access to Seth's
state of mind is better than mine.
--
On the other hand, the examined life isn't very lucrative.
Ulrika O'Brien * Philosopher without Portfolio * ulr...@aol.com
Graydon
: Go to your local pistol range and rent a 9mm. Point it down range and
: pull the trigger. The felt recoil is almost exactly the same amount of
: energy that 9mm slug will impart to the target(albiet the bullet will be
: concentrating it on a point source instead of your entire hand, and if
: shooting a semi-automatic you can subtract the energy used to operate the
: slide).
I agree with the rest of the post, *but* - felt recoil is the backwards
momentum of the firearm, more or less. p1 = p2, so m1v1 = m2v2; the
bullet (m1) is much lighter so it goes much faster.
However, Ek = 1/2 mv^2; the bullet leaves with the majority of the energy.
Still doesn't make any pistol caliber a reliable single shot stop on a
charging person, because there just isn't all that much energy there.
Most people expend more energy to step up on to a chair than there is in
a pistol cartridge.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>However, in a society that allows dueling, the classes become distinct, and
>further, members of the first class are killed off more quickly than
>currently. And if there is a genetic factor (note the *if*) in membership
>in that first class, then the next generation would have fewer members
>of the first class.
The same applies. The genetically stupid people will get killed off. There
will be a steady state with a certain percentage of the remaining types of
stupid people. Even a small percentage of stupid people in this steady state
is plenty to make trouble for the executive--if he sells his product to a
few million people, having just a few dozens or hundreds of stupid people
blame him for stupidity-caused accidents is a very, very, small percentage of
that million, but creates a near certainty of death in a duel.
>In addition, when measuring the risk
>to the executive, the risk is a function of lifespan, so if the lifespan
>of a stupid person is reduced, the overall risk to the executive is also
>reduced.
It is reduced. It's just not reduced enough to matter. 50 stupid people,
each dueling the executive, is not going to give the executive a much
different chance of death than 5000 stupid people--the chance is pretty much
100% either way.
>However, your counting from the age of majority is problematic, since
>stupid people under the age of majority do kill themselves through their
>stupidity.
It also doesn't matter what age I count from, unless there's an age at which
people can die from stupidity but are no duel risk (I would imagine parents
willing to duel because their children are hurt--parental love is a powerful
motivator and that a parent blames the executive when their child is hurt
does not mean the parent is stupid overall).
>Secondly, your 1/10th figure is merely an assumption on your
>part.
Of course it is. The number doesn't matter; I was just sticking an arbitrary
number in to make it clearer than if I said "many" and "few".
>But of these demonstrably stupid people,
>how many are smart enough to get to the executive to issue the challenge,
>not abusing underlings so much as to be challenged to a duel by the
>underling? This leaves one person to issue the challenge.
Oh, come now, you're now going to tell me that in order to produce a product,
the executive has to accept that 5 underlings will be killed by stupid
people?
And if there's one person left, that's still a 50% chance of dying. Would you
produce a product at a 50% chance of dying like that?
>But the overall risk to the executive is lessened, since the stupid actions
>of stupid people are a risk to that executive in our society that does not
>have duels; his risk of being hit by a stupid driver, the risk of being
>caught in a stupidly started fire, all sorts of other risks that would
>be reduced by actively reducing, through duels, stupid people.
Uh, you're trying to tell me that the executive has a 50% chance of dying of
such stupidity in our society? Or a 75% chance of dying (if he gets
challenged by _2_ duelists instead of one?)
>Then let me apologize. I meant no more coercion than normally exists in
>a society. If you are saying that refusal to duel, which *might* be accepted
>as evidence of culpability (*not* guilt) in a civil suit is as coercive as
>"pay your taxes or go to jail", you are really stretching the point.
Dueling involves a 50% chance of being dead! Being penalized for not doing
this is very coercive. And what happens if you lose in the suit? Right, you
have to pay someone money at gunpoint or be sent to jail. Or depending on
what Lunar "civil suits" are like, you are executed.
>>>>How fair can a duel be if you realize that not entering the duel is going
>>>>to get you dragged in front of a citizens' committee with your refusal to
>>>>duel being considered evidence of guilt?
>But yet again, you judge a society on a moral code separate from that internal
>to the society.
If you truly meant this, you would not attempt to convince me that, for
instance, the society takes care of thugs, or that it doesn't kill a lot of
people like me, or that it is safe for executives. Implicit in your attempt
to argue these things, rather than just say "it doesn't matter whether you
die in Lunar society, because if you do die, that would be consistent with the
Lunar moral code even if you personally would rather live", is the idea that
it _is_ fair in some sense other than internal to the society.
If you're going to argue for _any_ society, you have to claim that it's
better than some other society, and therefore choose criteria that are not
internal to those societies. Otherwise, you have no reason to prefer Luna or
the USA to Nazi Germany.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"An alien invader has entered our galaxy! It has now entered our universe,
clearing Saturn... radial velocity KMS minus 8. It is now orbiting directly
for Earth." --Bad American Dubbing #2 (quoting ???)
David G. Bell
Thomas...@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de "Thomas Koenig" writes:
> In rec.arts.sf.written, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>
> [Somebody else wrote]
>
> >>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
> >>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
> >>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>
> >It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
>
> Anybody else remember the beginning of "Midshipman Hornblower"? :-)
Not in detail, but this thread does put me in mind of the cargo of rice,
swelling as it has from the effects of one shot betwixt wind and water.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Never criticise a farmer with your mouth full.
Thomas Koenig
[Somebody else wrote]
>>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
Anybody else remember the beginning of "Midshipman Hornblower"? :-)
--
Thomas Koenig, Thomas...@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet.
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
Alex Rosser
>In article <4f3itn$2...@news.nstn.ca>
>R. A. Holt <rah...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>[deletia]
>>Instead of a sucker dart gun try a paint ball gun, but freeze the paint balls,
>>They won't penetrate the skin but will leave a nasty bruise. We have used this
>>method in my Ju Juitsu class. It does work, as the paint ball IS noticed when
>>it hits.
>>
>>L8r, Coppertop
>Let's do some back of the envelope estimates, shall we. Let's say that a
>9mm slug is about 3 ounces, and a paint ball about half an ounce. Top
>speed of the paint ball, *maybe* 90 mph. Speed of the slug is greater
>than the speed of sound, so let's estimate 700 mph.
Congrats. You just invented the 1312.5 grain 9mm slug. 1 lb=7000 grain,
calculate from there. This has meaning because just about the largest
commercially available 9mm slug is 147 grain. Not too bad, just an order
of magnitude off. If you were to fire the bullet, powder, case and primer
downrange you still may not have 3 oz flying.
>Converting to S.I. units, the paint ball is 0.014 Kg, the slug 0.085 Kg.
>The paintball travels at 40.234 m/s and the slug at 312.928 m/s.
>Kinetic energy is 0.5 * mass * velocity squared, so the paint ball has
>a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.014 * 40.234 * 40.234 = 113.314 Joules.
>The slug has a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.085 * 312.928 * 312.928 =
>4161.767 Joules, almost 37 times as much, and since the paint ball
>does not penetrate and the slug does, the relative energy transfer
>is effectively much greater than 37 times for the slug over the paint ball.
Uhm, logic check here... the paint ball does not penetrate. That means it
is expending all the energy on the target. However, a 9mm round can pass
entirely *through* a person with energy left to spare, so it hasn't
expended all it's energy on or in the target. Which is more effiecient?
>If you "notice" the frozen paint ball ("Ouch, that stings!"), how much
>more so will you "notice" the slug?
This isn't to say that the paintball is more effective than a 9mm round,
it's just to point out that David has made a couple of mistakes in
reasoning.
To relate this to the original argument(or rather, the original argument
that spun off the real original argument so long ago that I can't recall
what the original argument was) of cop vs. knife wielding person at 20
feet, and the argument that a 9mm round will appriciably slow down the
charging, knife wielding, now homicidal maniac....
Go to your local pistol range and rent a 9mm. Point it down range and
pull the trigger. The felt recoil is almost exactly the same amount of
energy that 9mm slug will impart to the target(albiet the bullet will be
concentrating it on a point source instead of your entire hand, and if
shooting a semi-automatic you can subtract the energy used to operate the
slide). Hardly enough to decelerate anyone now, is it? Also, you seem to
be counting on a single shot being a "magic bullet" and automatically
stopping the guy, which may or may not be the case. He probably won't be
instantly killed however, despite the way media and Hollywood paints the
effects of bullet wounds.
Remember, the cop loses the race once, and he may very well be DEAD. And
even if he wins the race, it doesn;t guarentee he doesn't get stuck. Why
race?
-Alex
lxro...@ugcs.caltech.edu
Nancy Lebovitz
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Barry DeCicco
|> >In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
|> >David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
|> >
|> >>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
|> >>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
|> >>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
|> >
|>
|> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
|>
|> 12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
|>
See the Horatio Hornblower series for a duel like this
(one pistol loaded, one unloaded - range: pressed against
the other's chest).
That would certainly take the wind out of the sails of a lot
of people who seem to think that they're good with a pistol,
and so have nothing to fear. They would under any system,
but they would have less chance of dying, and would probably
figure that they had virtually no chance of dying. With a
cold, coin flip, they'd have less chance for bravado.
The obvious drawback is that suicidal fanatics would have a field
day. We already have enough people willing to take a chance at
killing someone for a cause, and most assassination attempts seem to have
less than a 50% success rate. This would boost their chances enormously.
Barry
Timothy Morris
>The scenario is appropriate for putting the fear of God into a trainee,
>nothing more.
>
I'm glad you were there, standing behind me I suspect, as I thought I knew
everyone in the class. I mean, you had to be there seeing that you are able
to judge the reasoning, the conduct, and the intended effect of the
demonstration.
In point of fact, the knifeman _didn't_ rush everyone. The purpose of the
exercise was to try and simulate as nearly as possible the situation (all
too common) where an intoxicated (pick your substance) citizen has got
himself (almost always him) into a face off with his friendly neighborhood
deputy sheriff. The exercise was in defusing the situation. However, as in
real life, sometimes the situation deteriorated into an attack by the
knifeman. About 1/3 of the time, as I recall. I suspect it deteriorated on
me because I was the only prosecutor there for that course.
David MacLean
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>>In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>>
Interesting thought, Nancy. I was thinking along the lines of something
more protracted, something that was more of a struggle, and something where
the participants would be able to concede defeat short of death.
The quickness of the coin flip does not allow for second thoughts in the
face of mortality - flip and zap.
I forget the James Bond flick that this was displayed in, but do you remember
the one where Bond plays an electronic game with the villian, but the
joysticks were electrified with increasing voltage? The game could be
handicapped so that the skill levels are equalized, and the voltage levels
calibrated to the individual response to pain. The result would be long,
painful, and agonizing, and ultimately fatal if both participants had
the determination and the belief that they were right.
But in most disputes, the issues are too complex for anyone to believe,
in the face of death, that they are absolutely correct. Thus, the one
who wavers in his/her determination first loses - with no loss of life.
But the risk of loss of life must be there - it is a determining factor
of who is "right" and who is "wrong". Not some ambiguous moral code
imposed from without, but a very personal determination of right and
wrong.
David MacLean
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
>
>: The actions taken. Really Seth, you sound like I've just stolen your
>: favorite dolly. If you just sat down and thought it through, instead of
>: reacting in a blind rage, you would find that you have been fooled.
>
>: is perhaps the reason that con men are so successful.
>
>The idea of Seth Breidbart reacting to much of anything in a "blind rage"
>is quite amusing. "Supercilious contempt," I could maybe see. :-)
>
I bow to your superior knowledge; it appeared to me that Seth was sputtering.
>Since you feel so at ease with your personal presumptions, David, I
>shan't feel shy about pointing out that you deal with most of your
>interlocutors with a very high level of presumptous condescension?
>
You shouldn't feel at all shy, Gary. If I couldn't take it, I wouldn't
dish it out. However, I feel that I must point out that most of my
interlocutors that have felt the sting of my "very high level of presumptous
condescention" have entered the fray openly contemptuous of a concept or
idea that I have expressed. Since my thoughts can hardly be called
"mainstream", their contemptuousness stems from their unthinking defence
of the status quo. I endeavour to answer them in kind, but because
they are more "mainstream" than I am, you tend to overlook their tone.
>You persist in making assumptions about everyone's beliefs, prejudices,
>and feelings, and then you lecture them, usually, so far as I can tell,
>informing them of that which they perfectly well know. You consistently
>strike the attitude that you have superior knowledge which you will deign
>to share with the peons. Gee, some folks on Luna might stuff you out an
>airlock after enough of this. Wanna take a count here for that vote? :-)
>
Why not? That vote would be little more than a straw poll on Luna, since
Luna society hardly developed in a democratic atmosphere.
However, in Luna, when one makes the threat, even in jest, one must be
prepared to defend oneself against those who would misinterpret the
joking threat.
>If you stuck to facts, you'd do better towards convincing anyone; anyone
>who is still reading you by now.
>
And I suppose that the implication that I am unliked (by you, and I suppose
others) is supposed to instill fear in me? Trying to beat me into line
or else I will lose friends?
I suppose that this would work with some people.
However, if I make you angry enough, perhaps you will take the time to
actually think about what you say, rather than appealling to popular
opinion.
BTW, how is it that you feel yourself able to speak authoritatively about
what other people think or feel? Isn't this exhibiting "a very high level
of presumptous condescension"?
Or is that something that you, and those who happen to agree with you,
allowed to do, but those who happen not to fall into the catagory of
those who agree with you are not allowed to do?
Do you really object to my attitude, or is it the reflection of *your*
attitude that you object to?
>Lastly, is there some reason you are still cross-posting this thread to
>rec.arts.sf.fandom, no matter how many times you've been asked nicely to
>please take it elsewhere?
Gary, I told you once nicely, and now I repeat it so that you will hear it.
When I reply to a crossposted article, there is no way for me to know
if the originator reads all the groups that he crossposted to. I read
it in alt.fan.heinlein, and if I limit my reply to that group, I am not
sure that the originator will receive my reply. I am also uncertain as
to others who might wish to contribute, regardless of the group.
However, there is a standard to use in this case; use a "Followup-To:" line
in your header. If you want to exclude rec.arts.sf.fandom from replies
to YOUR post, then include the followup line. My software automatically
substitutes to followup line listing for the Newsgroup line, and consequently,
any reply I make to your post, if you have included the followup line, will
be posted only to those groups you include.
Some other software does not have this ability, and therefore it is a good
idea to note the change in followups, but the power to exclude
rec.arts.sf.fandom is in YOUR hands.
But judging from the number of responses, I would say that some people in
rec.arts.sf.fandom disagree with your evaluation that this thread is not
appropriate for that group. That you insist that your opinion is the
opinion that counts is displaying "a very high level of presumptous
condescension", both to me (which is immaterial, since your opinion of me
matters not) and to the other contributors to rec.arts.sf.fandom. What
you are saying, in effect, is that your opinion is somehow better than
theirs. Now isn't that exactly what you are charging me with?
>Do you have the delusion that many (or any)
>regular readers of this newsgroup want to read this thread? Do you read
>this newsgroup? If not, then please follow nettiquette, show us some of
>that politeness, quit posting to a newsgroup you don't read, and continue
>this discussion elsewhere than rec.arts.sf.fandom. Please. Okay?
>Thanks.
Use the followups line and other members in that particular group will
never see any reply that I make to your posts. Surely someone who is
so smugly certain of his understanding of netiquette will understand
the followup protocol?
Or do you just like to bitch?
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>>Let me get this straight. You were ashamed of your decision (not to kill
>>him) until you found out that he was on death row? This does not make
>>sense. If I found that I had spared the life of a person who then went
>>out and killed another, I would be more ashamed after I found out that
>>the man I spared had killed another. If my decision had gone the other
>>way, his victim would have been alive today.
>
>>Wayne, something tells me that you are not being completely candid.
>
>You're right. For very good reasons, I assure you. Let me make a
>simple point: My decision was based, as many were, partially on the
>fact that I had too heavy a dose of Heinlein as a child.
>
>It's not a case of my "sparing a life".
You are placing too much emphasis on this phrase. If you were, as you
claim, in a position to take that life, and made a conscious decision not
to, then you did indeed spare that life. This is not a moral concept,
it is a pragmatic one.
>I was never taught that lives
>are mine to spare, or take, according to my needs or wishes.
Neither was I, but the truth of the matter is that we all have the lives
of everybody else in our hands. We do not "spare" them, since we do not
make a conscious decision not to take a life. However, when we do
make that conscious decision, we do indeed "spare" that life.
>It was
>hatred and anger that led me to the pass; and love for my family and
>myself that got me through it.
>
>The creature in question had had two (inconclusive) fights with me;
>being unsuccessful with these, he had his friends proceed to beat a
>small and harmless friend to a pulp when I wasn't there. My friend
>was nearly killed.
>
>Had I acted on my impulse, I can say without question that the history
>of urban violence in Los Angeles would be profoundly different. My
>own life would have been ruined, as would the lives of my family; I
>would have been imprisoned, if successful, and dead, if not. Since
>this was not a reasonable set of choices, I opted for reason and
>stayed within the law.
>
>Now, before I hear how ashamed I should be for not sacrificing my
>life, I must say my temperance was matched by a number of other
>non-vigilantes who also thought the law should have dealt with this
>fella. Just for your information, he was co-founder of the Crips
>gang. The year: 1971.
>
>Was I responsible for the lives of his future victims? Of course not.
>I'm no "Terminator", subject to performing "retroactive abortions". I
>am neither judge nor jury nor executioner. It is a pleasant fantasy
>to imagine being such, but it isn't realistic. Such fantasies are
>what fuel the cycle of urban violence today.
>
In a "democracy", the justice system acts on our behalf. It is the agent
of our collective will. Every victory is our victory, but by the same
token, every mistake is our mistake. Every judge, every jury and every
executioner are our agents; they do what they do at our behest.
What fuels the cycle of urban violence is our collective retreat from it,
the "let the police handle it" attitude, the "it's not *my* responsibility"
thinking. We let our fear of violence persuade us that we are doing the
right thing by not doing anything at all.
Are you responsible for his future victims? Responsible is a rather strong
word, but a case may be made for it. But you certainly are accountable for
them, since you made a conscious decision not to stop this "creature" when
you had the chance.
"Am I my brother's keeper?" Only you can answer that.
>Your statement sounds like that of a home boy out for revenge. I've
>heard it a thousand times. Just because it's origin is Canada, and
>not southeast Los Angeles, does not make it less ridiculous.
>
You may have heard it a thousand times, but have you consciously rejected
it after serious consideration, or have you simply dismissed it without
thought?
>>Thus saving the man's future victim. Face it Wayne, if the penalty of
>>law had been removed, you don't *know* what you would have done, since
>>you have never been in a situation where the penalty of law did not apply.
>>We can argue back and forth until the cows come home, but it's merely
>>opinion. And the society in which the penalty of law is removed would
>>be radically different from the one we live in today - which is my point
>>about the Loonie society in tMiaHM.
>
>The Loonie society sounds like the barren Lunar landscape of the
>ghetto here in my hometown, which is why I don't subscribe to the
>fantasy. The idea that codified law isn't necessary for human
>cooperation is fine; but when this system goes into practice, the
>innocent start dropping like flies, for some reason, and the animals
>take advantage. Let's say I belled the cat, or slew the giant, or
>whatever. I would have become that which I hated - a killer,
>justifying the taking of life based on my own criteria. I haven't
>the ego to make these decisions lightly. At 17 no one should.
>
But this is the reason why so many of our societies decline; people take
a look at what "should" and "should not" be happening and ignore what "is"
and "is not" happening.
And no one said that you should have made the decision "lightly".
>>>This is the same decision, I think, that law enforcement officers face
>>>when apprehending criminals known to have committed heinous crimes. I
>>>mentioned to another group the story of a cop who caught a madman who
>>>had committed a protracted torture murder of a child; he read this
>>>animal's journal while taking him to the police station...and marvels
>>>to this day that the guy got there alive. He had to remember that to
>>>give in to his fury would have cost his family and himself too much,
>>>and still has problems with his decision.
>>>
>
>>If he "still has problems with his decision", then maybe he made the wrong
>>decision. The trouble is, you can't go back and take a different tack.
>
>A cop makes the decision not to murder his arrestee, and you think he
>made the wrong decision?
I did not say that. I merely stated that if his choice is still causing
him "problems", then maybe he made the wrong choice. Wrong for *him*, not
for you, not for me, not for the guy down the street.
>The social contract means that little to
>you?
>
The "social contract" is a myth, since a "contract" is a voluntarily entered
into agreement. I was not asked whether I agreed with the rules; they were
imposed on me. Neither were you.
I find that for the most part, those who most loudly espouse the concept
of "the social contract" are those who most agree with the rules that
are imposed on them, and their talk about "the social contract" is not
an proud boast of the voluntary nature of society, but rather a bludgeon
used to beat those who do not agree into line.
>>>The law is all that prevents more mayhem, not the better nature of
>>>man.
>
>>This is supposition on your part, born of a society that actively encourages
>>you to give up responsibilty for your decisions to the hands of those
>>in power.
>
>I think that society actively encourages me to share the power, not
>give it up. I am asked to vote; I can run for elected office, or a
>judgeship; I can volunteer to enforce the laws, in a uniform; and so
>forth. To say that I simply give up responsibility, because I don't
>use vigilante justice (even when objectively justified), is to vastly
>oversimplify the matter.
"I am asked to vote", but do you, and do others? The "vote" is merely
a mechanism for those who do vote to decide between already pre-chosen
alternatives. (And before you ask, I have voted in each and every
election that I was eligible to vote for since I attained the age of
majority in 1974. Most of the time, the alternatives presented were
hardly the ones that I would have chosen, but I have always found something
to vote against)
"I can run for elected office", but do you? The time has long since past
when "a boy growing up in a log cabin could grow up to be president". An
independent candidate has very little chance to succeed in politics and
even the few that do find themselves opposed to a solidly entrenched
political overclass. Have you noticed how much the Republican candidates
are spending just for their party's nomination?
"I can volunteer to enforce the laws, in a uniform" but that is the last
voluntary act. What if you do not agree with the laws?
And I did *not* say that you, personally, have given up responsibility.
What I have said that the people living in the western democracies have
systematically given up the responsibility for their actions to the powers
that be.
However, when it comes to you specifically, you accept responsibility for
your *not* exercising vigilante justice, but have refused to accept
responsibility for any of the consequences that come from that decision.
If you had decided the other way, someone who is now dead might well have
been alive. This is a consequence of your decision.
David MacLean
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>
>someone he doesn't like with him? (And if he has a large list, the
>expected number of others he gets to kill is 1.)
But Seth, by your (before Mr. Farber's intervention, I would have said
"outrage", but I have been assured by him that you never get upset with
contrary opinion) emotionally couched statement, you are implying that
this terminally ill person would not have a legitimate reason for
wanting to duel. It also presupposes that a terminally ill person would
want to risk the little time he has left at a 50% chance of killing someone
that he does not like.
And since your post is a reply to the discussion that Ken and I were having,
you will note that it is not a requirement to accept a duel, only that not
accepting might be accepted as culpability in a dispute that was brought
before the courts.
If you, for example, were challenged by a terminally ill person, you refused
and it ended up before the courts, the terminally ill person might bring
up your refusal to impeach you, but you are free to bring up his illness
and his personality to impeach him.
Or you just might be pissed off enough to accept - your choice.
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4f5ctl$6...@panix3.panix.com>
>se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>In article <4ev64b$5...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>Based on timed studies which do not account for the timers reaction time,
>>I'd think that, these days, any such studies would be done on
>>videotape, so the frames could be counted later (and there'd be no
>>problem with reaction times of the timer).
>But "these days", they are no longer "studies" but training exercises.
For that matter, in the original studies, why didn't the timer's
reaction time affect the start and end points of the period equally,
and therefore leave the length unchanged?
>Nobody is looking into the nature of the exercise, and it is *not* designed
>to test reaction time.
Why not?
>Videotape would ruin the entire scenario, since in most cases, the tape
>would show very clearly that the dart hit the attacker before the attacker
>hit the "victim". A 9mm slug is much more "discouraging" to the attacker
>than a suction cup plastic dart.
So? In the real world, people hit by bullets (even fatally hit) have
the nasty habit of not dying for a least a couple of seconds. To the
person at the pointy end of a knife, a couple of seconds is a looooong
time.
>Once again you get to the root of my problem with the exercise. The emphasis
>is "shoot or get stabbed". And you are the victim of this type of thinking
>just as much as anybody, Seth, since you are using the exercise as
>justification for killing or at least very gravely injuring another person.
>Sidestepping never enters your mind, or, if it does, is quickly dismissed.
I don't know of any school of martial arts that claims that a
practitioner, unarmed, has any kind of decent chance against somebody
armed with a knife. Since sidestepping is taught in most such
schools, I'm inclined to believe it isn't nearly as efficacious as you
want to believe.
> Really Seth, you sound like I've just stolen your
>favorite dolly. If you just sat down and thought it through, instead of
>reacting in a blind rage, you would find that you have been fooled.
Believe me, you hope never to see me any closer to a blind rage than
mildly annoyed, which I haven't even approached in this thread.
Seth
Wayne Johnson
[A number of excellent points, from Dave's and Wayne's perspective,
snipped; should be read, I think]
>And I did *not* say that you, personally, have given up responsibility.
>What I have said that the people living in the western democracies have
>systematically given up the responsibility for their actions to the powers
>that be.
>However, when it comes to you specifically, you accept responsibility for
>your *not* exercising vigilante justice, but have refused to accept
>responsibility for any of the consequences that come from that decision.
>If you had decided the other way, someone who is now dead might well have
>been alive. This is a consequence of your decision.
Consequence? That implies fault.
I have never subscribed to this notion: "If you don't pay the ransom,
my captives will die. Therefore, their lives are in your hands."
Those lives aren't in my hands; they're in the hands of a killer.
You speak as if this animal that I didn't kill was without free will;
that he could not control his own actions, and that it was up to me
(and others who knew him as I did) to protect the lives of his future
victims.
I wanted revenge, not the protection of future victims.
Most gang killings around here are the revenge type. Many revenge
killings aren't gang-related; some folks just act on the same feelings
I had, and didn't act on. The police call them all gang-related, but
many of them know better. Sometimes they applaud. So do I.
What I found ironic about Heinlein's Luna was the high-minded tone of
the Loonies who summarily executed miscreants in their midst. It was
always for the betterment of the tribe, not mere revenge. They spoke
of the code, the unwritten law - not mere rage at the actions of
another. But when you boil it down, it's rage that prompts the
vigilante kill.
Of course, some folks need killing; it's the cheapest and surest way
to get monsters out of the loop of life. It's just hard to make that
decision sometimes. Consultation with your fellows is advised before
doing it; thus, the justice system.
That silly assed argument - namely, what can society do that the
individual can't in the name of immorality - assumes that the group
and the individual are one and the same. The whole question is moot.
Either entity can do whatever it likes, and either the group or the
individual must pass judgement on it after it is done.
Thus when the individual decides to murder, it is not society which is
at fault; it is the individual. Even failing to stop that individual
after the first crime is not cause to say that society killed his
second victim, or his third. If society wants him to stop
immediately, society takes action.
But the individual is responsible. Wholly and totally.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
David MacLean
arro...@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4fbdbk$p...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>However, in a society that allows dueling, the classes become distinct, and
>>further, members of the first class are killed off more quickly than
>>currently. And if there is a genetic factor (note the *if*) in membership
>>in that first class, then the next generation would have fewer members
>>of the first class.
>
>The same applies. The genetically stupid people will get killed off. There
>will be a steady state with a certain percentage of the remaining types of
>stupid people.
Not so, Ken. If there is a genetic component to stupidity, then there will
be a constantly declining percentage of stupid people in the populace; the
currently stupid have a lower average lifespan and therefore, less
opportunity to breed. The next generation has a lower proportion of
stupid people, and the next generation still lower. The limit on this
declining series is zero, at which time we enter the steady state that
you envision.
>Even a small percentage of stupid people in this steady state
>is plenty to make trouble for the executive--if he sells his product to a
>few million people, having just a few dozens or hundreds of stupid people
>blame him for stupidity-caused accidents is a very, very, small percentage of
>that million, but creates a near certainty of death in a duel.
>
Whoops. This only holds if those stupid people blame this one executive.
However, their very stupidity makes it likely that they will have stupid
accidents with other products. The overall risk to this one particular
executive is not as high as you make it out to be since it is not the
class of stupid people versus a single executive, but the class of stupid
people versus the class of executives.
If an executive makes a life threatening or life destroying decision, then
his decision can be tracked down, but not by stupid people. His risk
increases enormously because of his decision. However, in our running
example of the stupid person injuring himself through not following
directions when operating a lawn mower, which executive is to blame?
Certainly one stupid person may hold one specific executive responsible,
but without any evidence of a specific executive's negligence, how likely
is it that all stupid people will blame this one executive?
>>In addition, when measuring the risk
>>to the executive, the risk is a function of lifespan, so if the lifespan
>>of a stupid person is reduced, the overall risk to the executive is also
>>reduced.
>
>It is reduced. It's just not reduced enough to matter. 50 stupid people,
>each dueling the executive, is not going to give the executive a much
>different chance of death than 5000 stupid people--the chance is pretty much
>100% either way.
>
But your hypothesis is based on the faulty notion that the 50 stupid people
who injure themselves through their own stupidity are all going to blame
this one executive. If there is no evidence of personal responsibility
on the part of any particular executive, then the executive on which each
of those fifty stupid people choose to blame is more or less a random
choice.
>>However, your counting from the age of majority is problematic, since
>>stupid people under the age of majority do kill themselves through their
>>stupidity.
>
>It also doesn't matter what age I count from, unless there's an age at which
>people can die from stupidity but are no duel risk (I would imagine parents
>willing to duel because their children are hurt--parental love is a powerful
>motivator and that a parent blames the executive when their child is hurt
>does not mean the parent is stupid overall).
>
But once again, if a parent blames a particular executive for the hurt of
a child when there is nothing to blame but the child's stupidity, then
it is not a case of the class of stupid people versus one executive, but
the class of stupid people versus the class of executives. The risk to
any particular executive is not the same as the sum of the risk to all
executives.
>>Secondly, your 1/10th figure is merely an assumption on your
>>part.
>
>Of course it is. The number doesn't matter; I was just sticking an arbitrary
>number in to make it clearer than if I said "many" and "few".
>
>>But of these demonstrably stupid people,
>>how many are smart enough to get to the executive to issue the challenge,
>>not abusing underlings so much as to be challenged to a duel by the
>>underling? This leaves one person to issue the challenge.
>
>Oh, come now, you're now going to tell me that in order to produce a product,
>the executive has to accept that 5 underlings will be killed by stupid
>people?
>
No, the *underlings* have to accept that possibility before accepting the
job.
>And if there's one person left, that's still a 50% chance of dying. Would you
>produce a product at a 50% chance of dying like that?
>
This assumes, of course, that the probability of a duel approaches certainty,
which it does not. Certainly you can manipulate the figures to make it
appear as if this were the case, but your underlying but unspoken assumption
is that *all* stupid people will accuse *one* executive and press the
challenge until that executive is dead. But this implies organization on
the part of stupid people, a contradiction.
>>But the overall risk to the executive is lessened, since the stupid actions
>>of stupid people are a risk to that executive in our society that does not
>>have duels; his risk of being hit by a stupid driver, the risk of being
>>caught in a stupidly started fire, all sorts of other risks that would
>>be reduced by actively reducing, through duels, stupid people.
>
>Uh, you're trying to tell me that the executive has a 50% chance of dying of
>such stupidity in our society? Or a 75% chance of dying (if he gets
>challenged by _2_ duelists instead of one?)
>
Again, I must correct you. If a walking executive is hit by a high speed
drunk driver, for example, he has a better than 50% chance of dying. This
does *not* mean that all executives have a better than 50% chance of dying
by being struck while walking by a high speed drunk driver. Nor does it
mean that *each* executive has a better than 50% chance of dying by being
struck while walking by a high speed drunk driver.
Ken, you and I have not always agreed, but you have always presented
cogent, well-thought-out arguments in your opposition. Thus it is
surprising to me that you hold on to this fallacious argument.
If there is a reason to blame a particular executive, then the risk to
that executive increases substantially, and hopefully, such a possible
increase would decrease his potential to make life threatening decisions.
However, if there is no reason for blaming a particular executive, then
the risk is spread through the entire class of executives. It is my
contention that this increased risk in one circumstance is offset by a
decreased risk of death through the actions of stupid people by a reduction
in the number of stupid people.
>>Then let me apologize. I meant no more coercion than normally exists in
>>a society. If you are saying that refusal to duel, which *might* be accepted
>>as evidence of culpability (*not* guilt) in a civil suit is as coercive as
>>"pay your taxes or go to jail", you are really stretching the point.
>
>Dueling involves a 50% chance of being dead! Being penalized for not doing
>this is very coercive. And what happens if you lose in the suit? Right, you
>have to pay someone money at gunpoint or be sent to jail. Or depending on
>what Lunar "civil suits" are like, you are executed.
>
Which would you prefer to do? Pay a penalty, or be sent to jail (at
gunpoint)? If you pay your income taxes, then you have already answered
that question.
>>>>>How fair can a duel be if you realize that not entering the duel is going
>>>>>to get you dragged in front of a citizens' committee with your refusal to
>>>>>duel being considered evidence of guilt?
>>But yet again, you judge a society on a moral code separate from that internal
>>to the society.
>
>If you truly meant this, you would not attempt to convince me that, for
>instance, the society takes care of thugs, or that it doesn't kill a lot of
>people like me, or that it is safe for executives. Implicit in your attempt
>to argue these things, rather than just say "it doesn't matter whether you
>die in Lunar society, because if you do die, that would be consistent with the
>Lunar moral code even if you personally would rather live", is the idea that
>it _is_ fair in some sense other than internal to the society.
>
Not so, Ken. What I am saying is that if "society" must exist (which is
an axiom, and not a theorum, something accepted without proof) then the
rules of the society must to some extent supercede the rules that any
particular member of that society would choose to live under. And please
note that I said rules and not laws; laws are a subset of the social rules.
For example, you might prefer one day to go to the beach, but the social
rules say that on this particular day, you must go to work. There is no
"law" that says you have to go to work, but it is a rule none-the-less.
There has never been a society yet where the society has not claimed
some right to life and death decisions over the members of that society.
Some have attempted to minimize that, but all have claimed the right.
Even America, that supposed bastion of individual freedom, executes
criminals, considers conscription to be a right of society, and arms
its police forces, thus exclaiming that the "guardians" of society have
the right to kill, albeit only in certain circumstances, but it is an
expression of the belief in the right of society to kill individual
members.
But this gets us back to Heinlein's question, expressed in tMiaHM by
Professor Bernardo de la Paz:
"Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not
moral for a member of that group to do alone?"
As Heinlein states (through the professor), "It is the *key* question ...
A radical question that strikes to the root of the whole dilemma of
government. Anyone who answers honestly and abides by *all* consequences
knows where he stands - and what he will die for."
If it is moral for a group (society) to kill or to decide to kill, then
why is it immoral for an individual in that society to kill or to decide
to kill?
>If you're going to argue for _any_ society, you have to claim that it's
>better than some other society, and therefore choose criteria that are not
>internal to those societies. Otherwise, you have no reason to prefer Luna or
>the USA to Nazi Germany.
Given a choice as to which society *I* would prefer to live in is something
quite different from condemning a society outright, and is strangely
out of sync with what normally happens. Very few of us *choose* to live
in a particular society. Most of us are born into it.
If you would prefer not to live in a Loonie-like society, that is a matter
of personal preference. However, using personal preference as a foundation
for claims that such a society would not "work" is another matter entirely.
David MacLean
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>Alex Rosser (lxro...@ugcs.caltech.edu) wrote:
>: Go to your local pistol range and rent a 9mm. Point it down range and
>: pull the trigger. The felt recoil is almost exactly the same amount of
>: energy that 9mm slug will impart to the target(albiet the bullet will be
>: concentrating it on a point source instead of your entire hand, and if
>: shooting a semi-automatic you can subtract the energy used to operate the
>: slide).
>
>momentum of the firearm, more or less. p1 = p2, so m1v1 = m2v2; the
>bullet (m1) is much lighter so it goes much faster.
>
>However, Ek = 1/2 mv^2; the bullet leaves with the majority of the energy.
>
>Still doesn't make any pistol caliber a reliable single shot stop on a
>charging person, because there just isn't all that much energy there.
>Most people expend more energy to step up on to a chair than there is in
>a pistol cartridge.
Take a 150 person and have him climb up on a 2 1/2 foot chair. The work
done (which equals the energy required to do the work is 375 foot-pounds
or about 52 Joules. Take a 147 grain bullet at a velocity of 700 mph,
and the kinetic energy is about 933 Joules or 6700 foot-pounds. Please
note that I have corrected my overestimate of the weight of the slug,
and rounded off, but the difference is a factor of about 18.
The kinetic energy in the slug is about what most people would expend
climbing four flights of stairs.
David MacLean
lxro...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Alex Rosser) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) writes:
>
>>In article <4f3itn$2...@news.nstn.ca>
>>R. A. Holt <rah...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>
>>[deletia]
>
>>>Instead of a sucker dart gun try a paint ball gun, but freeze the paint balls,
>>>They won't penetrate the skin but will leave a nasty bruise. We have used this
>>>method in my Ju Juitsu class. It does work, as the paint ball IS noticed when
>>>it hits.
>>>
>>>L8r, Coppertop
>
>>Let's do some back of the envelope estimates, shall we. Let's say that a
>>9mm slug is about 3 ounces, and a paint ball about half an ounce. Top
>>speed of the paint ball, *maybe* 90 mph. Speed of the slug is greater
>>than the speed of sound, so let's estimate 700 mph.
>
>Congrats. You just invented the 1312.5 grain 9mm slug. 1 lb=7000 grain,
>calculate from there. This has meaning because just about the largest
>commercially available 9mm slug is 147 grain. Not too bad, just an order
>of magnitude off. If you were to fire the bullet, powder, case and primer
>downrange you still may not have 3 oz flying.
>
Congrats. You caught the error of estimate in the slug, but failed to find
the same magnitude of error in the estimate of the weight of the paintball.
And you failed to point out the underestimate of the slugs speed. And
for kinetic energy calculations, the velocity is much more important than
the mass, since in such calculations, the velocity is squared.
The difference is not as great as you might think, and since it was a
*comparison*, the ratio between the kinetic energy of the paint ball
and the kinetic energy of the slug given the errors of estimate remain
about the same.
>>Converting to S.I. units, the paint ball is 0.014 Kg, the slug 0.085 Kg.
>>The paintball travels at 40.234 m/s and the slug at 312.928 m/s.
>
>>Kinetic energy is 0.5 * mass * velocity squared, so the paint ball has
>>a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.014 * 40.234 * 40.234 = 113.314 Joules.
>>The slug has a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.085 * 312.928 * 312.928 =
>>4161.767 Joules, almost 37 times as much, and since the paint ball
>>does not penetrate and the slug does, the relative energy transfer
>>is effectively much greater than 37 times for the slug over the paint ball.
>
>Uhm, logic check here... the paint ball does not penetrate. That means it
>is expending all the energy on the target. However, a 9mm round can pass
>entirely *through* a person with energy left to spare, so it hasn't
>expended all it's energy on or in the target. Which is more effiecient?
>
Logic check here... if the paint ball (frozen, or did you notice that) does
not penetrate, then it richochets off the body. When it richochets, it
still has mass and it still has velocity, and therefore it still has
kinetic energy. The kinetic energy it looses is imparted to the body
which it hits to cause the sting.
However, the slug penetrates and stays with the body, and therefore, all
of it's kinetic energy is transferred to the combination slug/human body.
If the slug passes through the body, the the amount of energy it transfers
to the body is the difference between the kinetic energy it had before
and the kinetic energy it had afterwards.
Efficiency is a term denoting the ratio of energy something imparted to
the energy that it had to impart, but that is irrelevant to the discussion,
since the paint ball could be 75% "efficient" and the slug 30% "efficient"
yet the slug *still* imparts one hell of a lot more energy to the
body that it hits.
>>If you "notice" the frozen paint ball ("Ouch, that stings!"), how much
>>more so will you "notice" the slug?
>
>This isn't to say that the paintball is more effective than a 9mm round,
>it's just to point out that David has made a couple of mistakes in
>reasoning.
>
No mistakes in the "reasoning", Alex. In fact, it is you who made the
error in reasoning by assuming that the paint ball imparted all it's energy
to the person that it hit. This was not an error on my part.
However, you are correct when you say that I overestimated the weight of
the slug, and I apologize. But it does not make as much difference as
you thought it would, since I underestimated the speed of the slug and
overestimated the mass of the paintball and then made a comparison between
the two. The error in the ratio is *not* an order of magnitude.
>To relate this to the original argument(or rather, the original argument
>that spun off the real original argument so long ago that I can't recall
>what the original argument was) of cop vs. knife wielding person at 20
>feet, and the argument that a 9mm round will appriciably slow down the
>charging, knife wielding, now homicidal maniac....
>
Correction. I never claimed that it would "stop" the maniac. However,
it will, if it hits off center, twist him. It will almost certainly
make him less effective in wielding the knife.
>Go to your local pistol range and rent a 9mm. Point it down range and
>pull the trigger. The felt recoil is almost exactly the same amount of
>energy that 9mm slug will impart to the target(albiet the bullet will be
>concentrating it on a point source instead of your entire hand, and if
>shooting a semi-automatic you can subtract the energy used to operate the
>slide). Hardly enough to decelerate anyone now, is it? Also, you seem to
>be counting on a single shot being a "magic bullet" and automatically
>stopping the guy, which may or may not be the case. He probably won't be
>instantly killed however, despite the way media and Hollywood paints the
>effects of bullet wounds.
>
>Remember, the cop loses the race once, and he may very well be DEAD. And
>even if he wins the race, it doesn;t guarentee he doesn't get stuck. Why
>race?
But that is precisely the point, Alex. The exercise, with the suction cup
dart and the rubber knife is designed to show the trainee that he will
lose in a real situation. The action happens quickly (not in less than
a second, but less than two seconds) and in all likelihood, the trainee
does indeed get a shot off and hits the attacker. However, the effect
of a rubber tip dart does not affect the attackers ability to wield a
knife, and therefore, when the trainee is "killed" with the rubber knife
a fraction of a second after he fired, it is emotionally drilled into his
head that the attacker has the advantage. Therefore, if he every finds
himself in a real life situation similar to the one in the training session,
his mindset is geared towards firing. So much so that it is highly likely
that in some real life situations, the knife wielder is shot before he
started to lunge, and even before the knife wielded *decided* to lunge.
After being shot by a 9mm instead of a rubber tipped dart, the effectiveness
of the knife wielding *is* reduced, so that the training scenario is not
as close to real life as the proponents would have us believe. I've been
through the exercise, and it took me years to question it, even after the
first time I merely dodged - and was reamed out by the instructor.
But you raise the same question that I have raised: why race?
It is training exercises like the one described, and other similar ones
that make it appear that the officer is much more vulnerable than he
actually is, and therefore, he must adopt an attitude of when in doubt,
shoot! It also reinforces in his mind the "show no fear" attitude, and
the "macho" image.
Is it any wonder that neighbourhoods in which the police concentrate their
efforts (mostly ethnic neighbourhoods, but not always. The one factor that
is common is that they are poor neighbourhoods) have a higher distrust of
the police than say your typical middle class suburban neighbourhood?
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>The same applies. The genetically stupid people will get killed off. There
>>will be a steady state with a certain percentage of the remaining types of
>>stupid people.
>Not so, Ken. If there is a genetic component to stupidity, then there will
>be a constantly declining percentage of stupid people in the populace; the
>currently stupid have a lower average lifespan and therefore, less
>opportunity to breed. The next generation has a lower proportion of
>stupid people, and the next generation still lower. The limit on this
>declining series is zero, at which time we enter the steady state that
>you envision.
Not unless "genetic component to stupidity" means that every stupid person
has this component, rather than that the probability that someone is stupid
is greater if they have it than if they don't.
>Certainly one stupid person may hold one specific executive responsible,
>but without any evidence of a specific executive's negligence, how likely
>is it that all stupid people will blame this one executive?
Having random executives face a 50% chance of death does not seem any better
to me than having specific executives face a 50% chance of death. You could
just as well require the executives to gather into a crowd and spray them with
bullets. Even if you use few enough bullets that only a small proportion of
them will actually die, few executives would be willing to face such a risk.
>>>Then let me apologize. I meant no more coercion than normally exists in
>>>a society. If you are saying that refusal to duel, which *might* be accepted
>>>as evidence of culpability (*not* guilt) in a civil suit is as coercive as
>>>"pay your taxes or go to jail", you are really stretching the point.
>>Dueling involves a 50% chance of being dead! Being penalized for not doing
>>this is very coercive. And what happens if you lose in the suit? Right, you
>>have to pay someone money at gunpoint or be sent to jail. Or depending on
>>what Lunar "civil suits" are like, you are executed.
>Which would you prefer to do? Pay a penalty, or be sent to jail (at
>gunpoint)? If you pay your income taxes, then you have already answered
>that question.
The Lunar system, here, is in that case at least no better than ours. And it's
still worse for other reasons; vigilante justice to force people to pay money
is not much better than vigilante justice to execute. Loathe taxes as you
may, it's unlikely that someone will decide that because you're a Jew and
refused to lick a Nazi's boots, and then compounded the offense by refusing to
accept a duel, they will therefore impose extra taxes on you, payable directly
to the Nazi.
Also, it's not clear what you mean by a "civil suit"; unlike modern civil
suits, I would suspect that Loonie "civil suits" _do_ let the loser be execut-
ed, in which case it's duel (and possibly die) or refuse (and possibly die).
>>Implicit in your attempt
>>to argue these things, rather than just say "it doesn't matter whether you
>>die in Lunar society, because if you do die, that would be consistent with the
>>Lunar moral code even if you personally would rather live", is the idea that
>>it _is_ fair in some sense other than internal to the society.
>Not so, Ken. What I am saying is that if "society" must exist (which is
>an axiom, and not a theorum, something accepted without proof) then the
>rules of the society must to some extent supercede the rules that any
>particular member of that society would choose to live under.
This is non-responsive.
You're not just _describing_ Lunar society. You're spending whole paragraphs
trying to convince me that it doesn't kill off executives, that it's no more
coercive than present-day society, etc.
Why should I prefer a society without a lot of dead executives to one with?
Why should it matter that this society is no more coercive than present day
society? Why should it matter whether organized groups like Nazis get a
foothold in this society?
If questions of fairness are inapplicable, then none of these things _should_
matter. They obviously do, or else you would not be trying to convince me of
them.
>If you would prefer not to live in a Loonie-like society, that is a matter
>of personal preference. However, using personal preference as a foundation
>for claims that such a society would not "work" is another matter entirely.
I agree that Lunar society would work--by its own standards, not mine. Howev-
er, likewise, Nazi Germany (at least the anti-semitic aspects) also works by
its own standards--its standards say that Jews can be killed, and golly--it
actually _does_ allow killing of Jews; it follows its own standards fine. Why
should I care that something works by its own standards?
David MacLean
an error in converting between S.I. units and British units. I could have
issued a cancel, but instead, I waited long enough for the post to reach
everyone, and am now entering this retraction. If I make a mistake,
I own up to it.
In article <4flbtc$r...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>
dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>In article <4fdoqg$e...@knot.queensu.ca>
>saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>>Alex Rosser (lxro...@ugcs.caltech.edu) wrote:
>>: Go to your local pistol range and rent a 9mm. Point it down range and
>>: pull the trigger. The felt recoil is almost exactly the same amount of
>>: energy that 9mm slug will impart to the target(albiet the bullet will be
>>: concentrating it on a point source instead of your entire hand, and if
>>: shooting a semi-automatic you can subtract the energy used to operate the
>>: slide).
>>
>>I agree with the rest of the post, *but* - felt recoil is the backwards
>>momentum of the firearm, more or less. p1 = p2, so m1v1 = m2v2; the
>>bullet (m1) is much lighter so it goes much faster.
>>
>>However, Ek = 1/2 mv^2; the bullet leaves with the majority of the energy.
>>
>>Still doesn't make any pistol caliber a reliable single shot stop on a
>>charging person, because there just isn't all that much energy there.
>>Most people expend more energy to step up on to a chair than there is in
>>a pistol cartridge.
>
>Take a 150 person and have him climb up on a 2 1/2 foot chair. The work
>done (which equals the energy required to do the work is 375 foot-pounds
>or about 52 Joules. Take a 147 grain bullet at a velocity of 700 mph,
>and the kinetic energy is about 933 Joules or 6700 foot-pounds. Please
>note that I have corrected my overestimate of the weight of the slug,
>and rounded off, but the difference is a factor of about 18.
>
And everyone who has followed the discussion so far will see that my error
was in converting pounds (which are units of force) to kilograms (which are
units of mass) and then proceding as if the mass were a force.
The corrected figures are 375 foot-pounds = 508 Joules (approximately).
and 933 Joules = 689 foot-pounds (approximately).
>The kinetic energy in the slug is about what most people would expend
>climbing four flights of stairs.
And this is where I really put my foot in my mouth and for this I own
the poster an apology. While he is still wrong (if "most" people expend
more energy stepping up on a chair, then "most" people would weigh over
250 pounds, which is not the case), I am wrong in that the kinetic energy
in the slug is about that expended by most people climbing four to five
feet. (The factor in my error is 9.8, which is the accelleration of
gravity).
But it is not energy that is important here, but power. It takes the same
amount of energy to lift a 150 pound human being 4 1/2 feet as it does
to raise a 10 pound weight 37.5 ft. You can take all the time you want
to lift it to that height, but nobody in their right mind would want to
be under that weight if it fell. The potential energy of position is
translated to kinetic energy when it falls. That energy is translated
to the body in a fraction of a second.
Nobody is likely to be killed hauling a ten pound weight up 37.5 feet;
death is a real possibility when hit by that 10 pound weight after it
had fallen 37.5 feet. Yet it is the same energy.
Nosy
<In article <4f5ctl$6...@panix3.panix.com>
<se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
<>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
<>>In article <4eqj96$9...@knot.queensu.ca>
<>>saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
<>
<>>>2) Reacting fast enough to hit the person closing with the knife first
<>>>with a ranged weapon is pretty much impossible if the start positions are
<>>>less than 8 m apart.
< >>
<>
<>I'd think that, these days, any such studies would be done on
<>videotape, so the frames could be counted later (and there'd be no
<>problem with reaction times of the timer).
<But "these days", they are no longer "studies" but training exercises.
Cite, please? Since Maclean is claiming expertise in the
matter of the Tueller drill, surely he can provide a pointer
to support his claim?
<Nobody is looking into the nature of the exercise, and it is *not* designed
<to test reaction time.
No? What, then, is it designed to do?
<Videotape would ruin the entire scenario, since in most cases, the tape
<would show very clearly that the dart hit the attacker before the attacker
<hit the "victim".
That would depend entirely upon the start conditions and the
relative reaction times of the persons involved.
It's a bit discouraging to find an expert who seems to be
so dogmatic
<A 9mm slug is much more "discouraging" to the attacker
<than a suction cup plastic dart.
Um, yes, it is, but it is hardly a death ray. Since Maclean
is such an expert on the Tueller drill, surely he's familiar
with the work on terminal ballistics done by Dr. Martin
Fackler of the International Wound Ballistics Association
(IWBA) and the work done by Marshall/Sanow as well?
*Surely* Maclean isn't claiming that even the "one shot
stop" is *instantaneous*, given his no-doubt careful
research into both the IWBA and Marshall/Sanow work?
<>>based on studies where there are only two presented options,
<>
<>Which, presumably, should _increase_ the speed of the person shooting,
<>right?
<Once again you get to the root of my problem with the exercise. The emphasis
<is "shoot or get stabbed".
That's one option in the Tueller drill. Another is "shoot
and get stabbed anyway".
<And you are the victim of this type of thinking
<just as much as anybody, Seth, since you are using the exercise as
<justification for killing or at least very gravely injuring another person.
Hmm. Is Maclean now claiming that self-defense is, oh, immoral?
<Sidestepping never enters your mind, or, if it does, is quickly dismissed.
How curious, that an expert in self defense should make such
a silly claim; surely Maclean has done the actual experimentation
to find out just how valid sidestepping would be as a defense
to a full-bore attack starting at 7 meters by a knife-armed
person?
This clearly is not much of a SF thread anymore, so I'll
set the followups to the martial arts group, where
Maclean's expertise can be shared with others.
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>>In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>>
>It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
I remember a short story I once read about this theme. The protagonist was
a college student who was weaker and less skilled than The Bully. He used
peer pressure to get the bully to agree to a duel that would measure
courage alone. A poisonous snake (I forget which - one whose bite _might_
kill you, but survivable with quick treatment) was put in a box with a
hole cut in each end and covered by plastic flaps. Each duellist would
simultaneously thrust a hand into the box and keep it there until one of
them chickened out or the snake struck. Supposedly there would be a 50/50
chance which one the snake struck (Except that the protagonist cheated).
Quite an amusing concept, I thought.
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
"I know there are some people in the world who do not tolerate their
fellow human beings, and I just can't _stand_ people like that!"
(after Tom Lehrer)
ashutosh agrawal
>nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>
>>>In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>>>
>>It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
My apologies if I have misunderstood as I have missed part of
the thread...
Why would dueling be an acceptable way to settle quarrels?
All it does is place a premium on the dueling skill, of the
person involved. If the method selected provides an emphasis on
luck (like the coin toss), then it tranfers the advantage to
the more desperate person. Therefore, lusers like me would end
up challenging Bill Gates and other richniks in hordes.....
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> >Are you saying that killing is always wrong because its net effect on
> >society is always negative?
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying killing is wrong,
> period. In some rare cases, the net effect on society of a particular
> killing might be positive. In such cases, killing could be 'the
> right thing to do', but only as the lesser of two evils (one, the
> active 'evil' of depriving a person of their life, their family of
> their presence, and society of their skills; the other, the passive
> 'evil' of allowing to happen whatever it is that will happen if
> you don't kill the person that is great enough to outweigh the
> first).
>
> If, for instance, you are suddenly zapped back in time with a loaded
> gun in hand and find yourself face-to-face with a young Hitler
> writing his first book, it would be wrong to kill him, and wrong to
> let him live (unless you are pretty sure you can alter what he will
> do if he does live). It's a tough choice: neither alternative is
> 'right' in its own right, but perhaps killing him would be the right
> thing to do in terms of nett societial effect.
>
> BRYou know, in Judaism at least, self-defense is in fact a duty--"If a man
comes to kill you, rise and kill him first", I don't have the precise
wording. Assuming my time travel hasn't disturbed some butterfly, etc,
Hitler is about to make my relatives into soup, or someone's relatives
anyhow, and that qualifies as self-defense in my book.
Noah Ravitz
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> >In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
> >David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
> >>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
> >>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
> >
> It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
>
>
> 12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Why handicap? Those who cannot compete should not duel. Those who will not
duel should apologize. Simple.
Noah Ravitz
BTW, love your buttons every year at Lunacon.
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> In article <4f3itn$2...@news.nstn.ca>
> R. A. Holt <rah...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
> >Instead of a sucker dart gun try a paint ball gun, but freeze the paint balls,
> >They won't penetrate the skin but will leave a nasty bruise. We have used this
> >method in my Ju Juitsu class. It does work, as the paint ball IS noticed when
> >it hits.
> >
> >L8r, Coppertop
>
> Let's do some back of the envelope estimates, shall we. Let's say that a
> 9mm slug is about 3 ounces, and a paint ball about half an ounce. Top
Wrong. Weight for a 9mm slug will range from 100-150 grains, usually
110-125. 15 grains per gram. The Russians have the saying "nine grams" for
a bullet so use that, why not? A paint ball is probably close to 1/2 oz,
maybe a little less--a .45 bullet weighs half an ounce (180-230 grains)and a
paint ball is slightly larger and rather less dense.
> speed of the paint ball, *maybe* 90 mph. Speed of the slug is greater
> than the speed of sound, so let's estimate 700 mph.
Muzzle velocity for a 9mm will range 900-1300 fps, figure on the high side,
and 1118 f/s is sonic vel. Most loads are supersonic.
>
> Converting to S.I. units, the paint ball is 0.014 Kg, the slug 0.085 Kg.
> The paintball travels at 40.234 m/s and the slug at 312.928 m/s.
>
> Kinetic energy is 0.5 * mass * velocity squared, so the paint ball has
> a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.014 * 40.234 * 40.234 = 113.314 Joules.
> The slug has a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.085 * 312.928 * 312.928 =
> 4161.767 Joules, almost 37 times as much, and since the paint ball
> does not penetrate and the slug does, the relative energy transfer
> is effectively much greater than 37 times for the slug over the paint ball.
Wrong. If the bullet penetrates and exits it dumps less energy than if it
stays in the body
>
> If you "notice" the frozen paint ball ("Ouch, that stings!"), how much
> more so will you "notice" the slug?
That's rather excessively obvious and you could have saved yourself the math.
Since I am butting in here I admit I don't know what inspired this, so tell
me--what is this all about?
Noah Ravitz
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> In article <4fdoqg$e...@knot.queensu.ca>
> saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
> >Alex Rosser (lxro...@ugcs.caltech.edu) wrote:
> >: Go to your local pistol range and rent a 9mm. Point it down range and
> >: pull the trigger. The felt recoil is almost exactly the same amount of
> >: energy that 9mm slug will impart to the target(albiet the bullet will be
> >: concentrating it on a point source instead of your entire hand, and if
> >: shooting a semi-automatic you can subtract the energy used to operate the
> >: slide).
> >
> >I agree with the rest of the post, *but* - felt recoil is the backwards
> >momentum of the firearm, more or less. p1 = p2, so m1v1 = m2v2; the
> >bullet (m1) is much lighter so it goes much faster.
> >
> >However, Ek = 1/2 mv^2; the bullet leaves with the majority of the energy.
> >
> >Still doesn't make any pistol caliber a reliable single shot stop on a
> >charging person, because there just isn't all that much energy there.
> >Most people expend more energy to step up on to a chair than there is in
> >a pistol cartridge.
>
> Take a 150 person and have him climb up on a 2 1/2 foot chair. The work
> done (which equals the energy required to do the work is 375 foot-pounds
> or about 52 Joules. Take a 147 grain bullet at a velocity of 700 mph,
> and the kinetic energy is about 933 Joules or 6700 foot-pounds. Please
> note that I have corrected my overestimate of the weight of the slug,
> and rounded off, but the difference is a factor of about 18.
Muzzle energy of a 9mm round will be on the order of 150 ft-lb. Maybe 200 or
a little better with a hypervelocity load whose momentum, which many experts
feel to be more relevant to stopping power than KE, will be piddly. If you
lay under a man and shot upwards into his crotch, you would lift him off the
ground--just.
>
> The kinetic energy in the slug is about what most people would expend
> climbing four flights of stairs.
It would not exceed the energy in climbing four steps, let alone four
flights. However, a bullet is not a staircase, and due to tissue injury a
bullet will, of course, do much more damage than falling down four steps.
Keep in mind that a .22 at 40 grains and 1000 fps will kill a man quite
nicely on a brain or heart shot. Assuming such a hit is made, which can be
difficult. Stats on handguns suggest 50-75% one-shot stops with major
calibers; but as anyone familiar with the US Army's record in the Philippines
can tell you, the 9mm/.38 cal class of bullet has a poor record against
highly motivated foes (i.e. fanatics, addicts, the adrenaline-rich).
Tell me this--when perp charges from 20 ft., when is one supposed to shoot?
Noah Ravitz
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> >>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
> >>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
> >>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>
> >It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
>
Yes! I thought no one else read those books--so glad to find another fan!
C.S. Forester was mother's milk to me.
Noah Ravitz
Graydon
: Why would dueling be an acceptable way to settle quarrels?
: All it does is place a premium on the dueling skill, of the
: person involved. If the method selected provides an emphasis on
: luck (like the coin toss), then it tranfers the advantage to
: the more desperate person. Therefore, lusers like me would end
: up challenging Bill Gates and other richniks in hordes.....
In a society that doesn't have the resources to spare to support a class
of lawyers or more than marginal courts, the essential thing is not
perfect fairness (which isn't achievable anyway), it's to get the damn
dispute settled in a way that stays settled, before aforesaid dispute
sucks up more resources. (Note that such societies don't have the wealth
spread that exists in industrial cultures; the richest class and poorest
class in Classical Athens were only 2 orders of magnitude appart in annual
income, as opposed to the present where you can argue for _nine_ across
the extreme examples and five or six between the struggling rich and the
very poor.)
If (and this is a big if) a duel kills one of the parties to the
intractable hostility, the duel will have resolved the dispute, which is
the most important thing to such a society. (You then have to figure out
what to do about cultural tropes for taking revenge.)
In our society, the civil suit is descended from something intended as
an alternative to duels - pauperize the fellow legally, so they *can't*
continue the dispute, rather than killing them. This has the advantage of
dragging their family down with them and greatly reducing the next
generation's inheritance if it doesn't eliminate it completely; solves
most of the vengence problem, since the resouces to enact vengence (up to
and including the survival of heirs) are much less likely to exist. It's
also extremely expensive in both monetary and social terms.
Of course, a court system that had limits on awards and was designed so
that money was useless to you - ie. lawyers nationalized, and your
particular lawyer selected by lot - would go a long way towards fixing
this, but no one wants it.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
R. A. Holt
> In article <4f8ilc$4...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
> David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
> >In article <4f5ctl$6...@panix3.panix.com>
> >se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
> >>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>Based on timed studies which do not account for the timers reaction time,
> >>I'd think that, these days, any such studies would be done on
> >>videotape, so the frames could be counted later (and there'd be no
> >>problem with reaction times of the timer).
>
> reaction time affect the start and end points of the period equally,
> and therefore leave the length unchanged?
>
> >to test reaction time.
>
>
> >Videotape would ruin the entire scenario, since in most cases, the tape
> >would show very clearly that the dart hit the attacker before the attacker
> >than a suction cup plastic dart.
>
> the nasty habit of not dying for a least a couple of seconds. To the
> person at the pointy end of a knife, a couple of seconds is a looooong
> time.
>
> >just as much as anybody, Seth, since you are using the exercise as
> >justification for killing or at least very gravely injuring another person.
>
> practitioner, unarmed, has any kind of decent chance against somebody
> armed with a knife. Since sidestepping is taught in most such
> schools, I'm inclined to believe it isn't nearly as efficacious as you
> want to believe.
of Ju Juitsu will(IMHO) hospitalise anyone foolish enough to attack them with a
knife, or a gun for that matter, providing they are in arms reach. By traditional
style I mean Ju Juitsu, not some blend of karate and judo or hapkido etc.(check the lineage)
Please note it only takes about six months of serious effort to attain this level
of skill.(ie about 6 to 8 hours per week of training)
L8r, Coppertop
R. A. Holt
> In article <4fbc0j$r...@panix2.panix.com>
> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
> >David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote:
> >
> >: favorite dolly. If you just sat down and thought it through, instead of
> >: reacting in a blind rage, you would find that you have been fooled.
> >
I find this this thread highly entertaining, I just love a good arguement,
if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen I say.
l8r Coppertop
Ken Arromdee
Noah Benjamin Ravitz <nra...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
>Why handicap? Those who cannot compete should not duel. Those who will not
>duel should apologize. Simple.
You haven't been paying attention.
This particular example was about an executive who makes a product used by
millions of people and is challenged to a duel simply because when you have
millions of people, a few of them will blame him for mishaps no matter what
his actual responsibility is.
What he is being accused of by these people (but which he did not actually do)
is something for which apologies are not acceptable.
T. Hsu
> [deletia]
>Instead of a sucker dart gun try a paint ball gun, but freeze the paint balls,
>They won't penetrate the skin but will leave a nasty bruise. We have used this
>method in my Ju Juitsu class. It does work, as the paint ball IS noticed when
>it hits.
This is pretty dangerous. My semi-auto paintball gun fires at 280-290ft/sec
and I have seen paintballs break exposed skin. That's why there are rules
about minimum target distances, head shots, face masks, and velocity limits.
I suppose that it is possible to find a paintball gun that will adjust down
to a fairly safe (assuming face masks) 100ft/sec.
--
T.Hsu // ti...@x.org // Technical Staff, X Consortium
Jim Puckett
says...
>The Loonie society sounds like the barren Lunar landscape of the
>ghetto here in my hometown, which is why I don't subscribe to the
>fantasy. The idea that codified law isn't necessary for human
>cooperation is fine; but when this system goes into practice, the
>innocent start dropping like flies, for some reason, and the animals
>take advantage.
Hi Wayne!
...hmmmm, that phrase "too heavy a dose of Heinlein as a child" -
I've used it before :)
But that being said - I don't think that the Loonie culture has
anything in common with LA. The ghetto isn't a lawless place, but
a place where the "good" folks (which usually includes the most
competent) are also those constrained by law, and the "bad" folks
can play by any rules whatsoever.
Kind of a big extension on "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will
have guns" - If murder is against the law, but impossible to enforce,
then the folks who will obey the law are gonna die out most riki-tiki.
Only way that I can see out of that trap is to get rid of the law.
jim "not an anarchist, but trying to be rational" p.
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4flnps$8...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>The same applies. The genetically stupid people will get killed off. There
>>>will be a steady state with a certain percentage of the remaining types of
>>>stupid people.
>>Not so, Ken. If there is a genetic component to stupidity, then there will
>>be a constantly declining percentage of stupid people in the populace; the
>>currently stupid have a lower average lifespan and therefore, less
>>opportunity to breed. The next generation has a lower proportion of
>>stupid people, and the next generation still lower. The limit on this
>>declining series is zero, at which time we enter the steady state that
>>you envision.
>
>Not unless "genetic component to stupidity" means that every stupid person
>has this component, rather than that the probability that someone is stupid
>is greater if they have it than if they don't.
>
First definition was always implied.
>>Certainly one stupid person may hold one specific executive responsible,
>>but without any evidence of a specific executive's negligence, how likely
>>is it that all stupid people will blame this one executive?
>
>Having random executives face a 50% chance of death does not seem any better
>to me than having specific executives face a 50% chance of death.
Nonsense. You have about a 0.2% chance of dying of lung cancer if you
are a non-smoker and about a 2% chance of dying of lung cancer if you
are a smoker. However, once you contract lung cancer, you have about an
85% chance of dying of it. What you have been driving at is because
"Bob", who has lung cancer, has an 85% chance of dying of lung cancer,
that "Art" who does not have lung cancer, has an 85% chance of dying of
lung cancer. It just ain't so, Ken.
>You could
>just as well require the executives to gather into a crowd and spray them with
>bullets. Even if you use few enough bullets that only a small proportion of
>them will actually die, few executives would be willing to face such a risk.
>
And no executive is forced to accept a duel, just the fact that such a
refusal *might* be interpretted as consistant with culpability.
BTW, I wish to point out that if you required stupid people to gather into
a crowd and spray them with just as few bullets, very few would would be
at the designated spot.
And you have created another straw man, since not all executives nor
all stupid people will be engaged in duels, and the individual involved
has some feeling of control over the situation.
>>>>Then let me apologize. I meant no more coercion than normally exists in
>>>>a society. If you are saying that refusal to duel, which *might* be accepted
>>>>as evidence of culpability (*not* guilt) in a civil suit is as coercive as
>>>>"pay your taxes or go to jail", you are really stretching the point.
>>>Dueling involves a 50% chance of being dead! Being penalized for not doing
>>>this is very coercive. And what happens if you lose in the suit? Right, you
>>>have to pay someone money at gunpoint or be sent to jail. Or depending on
>>>what Lunar "civil suits" are like, you are executed.
>>Which would you prefer to do? Pay a penalty, or be sent to jail (at
>>gunpoint)? If you pay your income taxes, then you have already answered
>>that question.
>
>The Lunar system, here, is in that case at least no better than ours. And it's
>still worse for other reasons;
A moral judgement.
>vigilante justice to force people to pay money
>is not much better than vigilante justice to execute.
Nor do I see any difference between vigilante justice forcing people to
pay money and "judicial" justice doing the same thing. And there is no
difference between you going out and killing a murderer and you being
coerced to pay, through taxes, the executioner to do the same thing.
>Loathe taxes as you
>may, it's unlikely that someone will decide that because you're a Jew and
>refused to lick a Nazi's boots, and then compounded the offense by refusing to
>accept a duel, they will therefore impose extra taxes on you, payable directly
>to the Nazi.
>
No, they'll just use the army to march me into death camps.
>Also, it's not clear what you mean by a "civil suit"; unlike modern civil
>suits, I would suspect that Loonie "civil suits" _do_ let the loser be execut-
>ed, in which case it's duel (and possibly die) or refuse (and possibly die).
>
That would be, of course, dependant on whether the right can be corrected
by means other than death. And that would depend on the "wronged" party.
If you are injured by the negligence of a manufacturer, cash may be
sufficient, or it may not be. However, if a civil suit decides on a
certain penalty, and the person being "punished" agrees to the punishment,
but the victim does not, then he is perfectly within his "rights" to attempt
to kill, but then, he would not have likely agreed to have in adjudicated
in the first place.
>>>Implicit in your attempt
>>>to argue these things, rather than just say "it doesn't matter whether you
>>>die in Lunar society, because if you do die, that would be consistent with the
>>>Lunar moral code even if you personally would rather live", is the idea that
>>>it _is_ fair in some sense other than internal to the society.
>>Not so, Ken. What I am saying is that if "society" must exist (which is
>>an axiom, and not a theorum, something accepted without proof) then the
>>rules of the society must to some extent supercede the rules that any
>>particular member of that society would choose to live under.
>
>This is non-responsive.
It certainly is responsive to what you have said. Ken, you consider that
your moral code, on which you base what is "fair" and "unfair" is universal.
I do not hold this to be true. As long as I don't, anything that I say on
the matter could be construed as "non-responsive" since the only response
that you seem willing to accept is the response "You're right. You're
concepts of fairness and morality are universal. What a fool I've been."
Ken, *you* can die tomorrow. Hope it doesn't happen, but it is a possibility.
Despite all your protestations, we who have enjoyed your posts could be
reading your obituary. Death transcends fairness.
>
>You're not just _describing_ Lunar society. You're spending whole paragraphs
>trying to convince me that it doesn't kill off executives, that it's no more
>coercive than present-day society, etc.
>
Executives face death each and every day, as do we all. Below the age of
fifty, death due to the stupidity of others (and our own stupidity) is
far more likely than any other death. It is your mindset that refuses
to accept the possibility that the probability of early death of an
executive (arguably one of the more productive members of society) might
be reduced. True, the risk from death by dueling increases, but since
executives are not the only class that would be targetted by the class of
stupid people (they'd target whomever pissed them off, from waitress and
scientist to other stupid people), the death rate in that class would be
phenomenally greater than other classes, and the risk of death by stupid
action of stupid people is therefore reduced for the executive.
If the death rate for executives is no greater than at present, then
it's no more "risky" for executives than it is today.
The one factor that makes it riskier for executives is if they make decisions
that are life threatening. Then, they are not on the hit list of stupid
people, they are on the hit list of those affected by the life threatening
decision.
And since it is his decision, he has the ability to reduce his risk by not
making life threatening decisions.
>Why should I prefer a society without a lot of dead executives to one with?
>Why should it matter that this society is no more coercive than present day
>society? Why should it matter whether organized groups like Nazis get a
>foothold in this society?
>
Ken, you have offerred an *opinion* that there would be more dead executives
in Loonie society than in ours. I have offerred another opinion.
You have offerred an *opinion* that organized groups like Nazis would
inevitably gain a foothold. I have offerred another opinion.
When I offerred my opinions, I pointed out why the reasons that you
stated for your beliefs were wrong, and I stated my reasons for believing
as I do.
There was a time when you presented counter arguments. Now, you merely
state your opinions as if they were established fact. If you grow bored
with the debate, then stop.
>If questions of fairness are inapplicable, then none of these things _should_
>matter. They obviously do, or else you would not be trying to convince me of
>them.
>
Not so. I am *not* trying to convince you to live in a Loonie-like society,
nor am I trying to convince you to even *like* a Loonie-like society. I
have simply found what I consider to be flaws in your reasoning in defence
of your beliefs.
Hating something is not a problem; that you hate the concepts presented
in tMiaHM is evident. But hating them for flawed reasons is something else
again.
>>If you would prefer not to live in a Loonie-like society, that is a matter
>>of personal preference. However, using personal preference as a foundation
>>for claims that such a society would not "work" is another matter entirely.
>
>I agree that Lunar society would work--by its own standards, not mine. Howev-
>er, likewise, Nazi Germany (at least the anti-semitic aspects) also works by
>its own standards--its standards say that Jews can be killed, and golly--it
>actually _does_ allow killing of Jews; it follows its own standards fine. Why
>should I care that something works by its own standards?
Correction. Nazi Germany did NOT work by its own standards, since by its
own standards, the Aryan "race" would naturally rule the world.
For a society to work by its own standards, it must work by all of its
own standards. The "natural superiority" of the Aryan race, one of the
Nazi "standards" did not work. Hense, the Nazi society as envisioned did
not work.
Nancy Lebovitz
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4fc13e$g...@universe.digex.net>
>nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>>>In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>>>
>>It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
>
>more protracted, something that was more of a struggle, and something where
>the participants would be able to concede defeat short of death.
That's the hellishness of the net....people respond to what you say
as well as to what you are (probably) thinking.
>
>The quickness of the coin flip does not allow for second thoughts in the
>face of mortality - flip and zap.
>
I suppose a system of repeated bets with a number of points equalling
death could be worked out.
>I forget the James Bond flick that this was displayed in, but do you remember
>the one where Bond plays an electronic game with the villian, but the
>joysticks were electrified with increasing voltage? The game could be
>handicapped so that the skill levels are equalized, and the voltage levels
>calibrated to the individual response to pain. The result would be long,
>painful, and agonizing, and ultimately fatal if both participants had
>the determination and the belief that they were right.
>
I seriously doubt that people's skill levels and pain tolerance
could be measured that accurately--especially since they'd have
good reason to conceal their actual capacities.
>But in most disputes, the issues are too complex for anyone to believe,
>in the face of death, that they are absolutely correct. Thus, the one
>who wavers in his/her determination first loses - with no loss of life.
This reminds me of a bit (possibly in one of the Paul Edwin Zimmer
novels) where an expert swordman is trying to figure out exactly
what one wants to test in a swordfight--he doesn't come to a
conclusion.
>But the risk of loss of life must be there - it is a determining factor
>of who is "right" and who is "wrong". Not some ambiguous moral code
>imposed from without, but a very personal determination of right and
>wrong.
>
Of course, this doesn't measure anything other than determination--
and/or willingness to kill/die. An opponent who believed in the
value of human life would have a disadvantage.
Nancy Lebovitz
What do you mean by "wrong"?
>> period. In some rare cases, the net effect on society of a particular
>> killing might be positive. In such cases, killing could be 'the
>> right thing to do', but only as the lesser of two evils (one, the
>> active 'evil' of depriving a person of their life, their family of
>> their presence, and society of their skills; the other, the passive
>> 'evil' of allowing to happen whatever it is that will happen if
>> you don't kill the person that is great enough to outweigh the
>> first).
>>
>> If, for instance, you are suddenly zapped back in time with a loaded
>> gun in hand and find yourself face-to-face with a young Hitler
>> writing his first book, it would be wrong to kill him, and wrong to
>> let him live (unless you are pretty sure you can alter what he will
>> do if he does live). It's a tough choice: neither alternative is
>> 'right' in its own right, but perhaps killing him would be the right
>> thing to do in terms of nett societial effect.
>>
>> BRYou know, in Judaism at least, self-defense is in fact a duty--"If a man
>comes to kill you, rise and kill him first", I don't have the precise
>wording. Assuming my time travel hasn't disturbed some butterfly, etc,
>Hitler is about to make my relatives into soup, or someone's relatives
>anyhow, and that qualifies as self-defense in my book.
>
The interesting question at this point is the nature of time and
free will. The Hitler before you hasn't killed anyone yet (except
as a soldier?). Should you wait until at least one person has
died as a result of Hitler's acions? (Afaik, Hitler didn't personally
commit any murders.) If you could prevent the Holocaust by becoming
Hitler's art patron and thus distracting him from politics, is this
morally better than killing him?
David MacLean
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <4f8ilc$4...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>In article <4f5ctl$6...@panix3.panix.com>
>>se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>favorite dolly. If you just sat down and thought it through, instead of
>>reacting in a blind rage, you would find that you have been fooled.
>
>mildly annoyed, which I haven't even approached in this thread.
>
>Seth
>
Simon Slavin
ashutosh agrawal <agr...@rpi.edu> wrote:
> >nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
> >
> >>>In article <4f4tun$i...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
> >>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
> >>>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
> >>>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
> >>>
> >>It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
>
> My apologies if I have misunderstood as I have missed part of
> the thread...
> Why would dueling be an acceptable way to settle quarrels?
> All it does is place a premium on the dueling skill, of the
> person involved. If the method selected provides an emphasis on
> luck (like the coin toss), then it tranfers the advantage to
> the more desperate person. Therefore, lusers like me would end
> up challenging Bill Gates and other richniks in hordes.....
By tautologies in the deep wood but I have kissed Portishead...
Plywood tooling frees a decent end-table; Plato fettles morals.
Cruel and flood displace a creamy yam on the falling hill and the
mercy is foaled. If the pea-pod inspected devides a feminist to
tuck (take the hired moss), when it confers the more plantage to
the four hesitant cur's one. Care for bruisers tightly stood end
up like a mingy still rates, and flood her witch licks and cords.....
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin - Computing Manager (not speaker) for The Enterprise Group Ltd.
"We are *all* standing in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
-- Oscar Wilde. email address will change soon. sla...@somewhere.else is me.
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>[A number of excellent points, from Dave's and Wayne's perspective,
>snipped; should be read, I think]
>
>>And I did *not* say that you, personally, have given up responsibility.
>>What I have said that the people living in the western democracies have
>>systematically given up the responsibility for their actions to the powers
>>that be.
>
>>However, when it comes to you specifically, you accept responsibility for
>>your *not* exercising vigilante justice, but have refused to accept
>>responsibility for any of the consequences that come from that decision.
>
>>If you had decided the other way, someone who is now dead might well have
>>been alive. This is a consequence of your decision.
>
>Consequence? That implies fault.
>
>I have never subscribed to this notion: "If you don't pay the ransom,
>my captives will die. Therefore, their lives are in your hands."
>Those lives aren't in my hands; they're in the hands of a killer.
>
You are creating a straw man here. A consequence of your parking in a
particular spot is the fact that I cannot park there while your vehicle
remains. Is it your "fault" that I am unable to park in that spot?
Nonsense, even though the fact that I cannot park in that spot is a
direct consequence of your having parked there.
However, if there are no parking spots remaining, you share responsibility
for my not being able to find a parking space. Is it your "fault"? Again,
no, since fault has the connotation of your doing something "wrong".
Right and wrong are *moral* concepts, and since fault relies on right or
wrong, it is a moral concept as well. "Consequence", on the other hand,
is an amoral term. If one action derives from another, then it is the
consequence of the other; no rightness or wrongness attaches.
Your example, though emotionally strong, does not apply to what I have
said.
>You speak as if this animal that I didn't kill was without free will;
>that he could not control his own actions, and that it was up to me
>(and others who knew him as I did) to protect the lives of his future
>victims.
>
Again, this is only true if I was laying blame; I was not. The simple fact
is that if the decision had gone the other way, this "animal" would not
have been around to claim his "future" victims. This is a consequence of
the decision. Whether the decision was "faulty", I leave in the hands of
the fully aware person who made the decision. At most, I am adding to
full awareness.
>I wanted revenge, not the protection of future victims.
>
>Most gang killings around here are the revenge type. Many revenge
>killings aren't gang-related; some folks just act on the same feelings
>I had, and didn't act on. The police call them all gang-related, but
>many of them know better. Sometimes they applaud. So do I.
>
>What I found ironic about Heinlein's Luna was the high-minded tone of
>the Loonies who summarily executed miscreants in their midst. It was
>always for the betterment of the tribe, not mere revenge. They spoke
>of the code, the unwritten law - not mere rage at the actions of
>another. But when you boil it down, it's rage that prompts the
>vigilante kill.
>
In our society, I would have to agree. However, in Heinlein's Luna, with
it's transition period which could only be described as bloody by its
strongest apologists, people who went into a rage, in the sense of
uncontrollable anger, would themselves have been high on the "target" list.
In Luna society, a person who is unable to control his anger would find
himself continously in life threatening situations until such time as he
learned to control his temper, or was killed.
>Of course, some folks need killing; it's the cheapest and surest way
>to get monsters out of the loop of life. It's just hard to make that
>decision sometimes. Consultation with your fellows is advised before
>doing it; thus, the justice system.
>
There is quite a difference between "advised" and "demanded". With our
"justice" system, consultation is demanded. With the Loonie system,
such consultation is very strongly advised on pain of the same summary
justice that you hand out being used on you. The other difference is that
with our current "justice" system, personal responsibility ends with the
calling in of the police. In the Loonie system, personal responsibility
cannot be delegated.
>That silly assed argument - namely, what can society do that the
>individual can't in the name of immorality - assumes that the group
>and the individual are one and the same. The whole question is moot.
>Either entity can do whatever it likes, and either the group or the
>individual must pass judgement on it after it is done.
>
The restatement of the question renders it a different question, since it
is not a question of who is able to do what "in the name of morality", but
what is it moral for a group to do what it is immoral for an individual
member of that group to do. It is not a question of motivation, which
your restatement appears to make it, but the basic question of right and
wrong. If an act is immoral for you to commit on your own, then why would
the same act be moral when you and I and other get together to form a
"society". If it is wrong for me to demand money from you on the threat
of some punishment, then why is it right for society to do it? If it is
wrong for me to kill someone, then what makes it right for "society"
to do so?
This question is not as easily dismissed as you might like to think. Even
if it is conceded that society is different from a group of individuals,
and therefore society has different moral imperatives than do individuals,
this still leaves the question of at what point does a group of individuals
turn into a society? Even by our current standards, a group of individuals
does not a society make, else organized crime would not be pursued for
offing one of their members.
>Thus when the individual decides to murder, it is not society which is
>at fault; it is the individual. Even failing to stop that individual
>after the first crime is not cause to say that society killed his
>second victim, or his third. If society wants him to stop
>immediately, society takes action.
>
But is not society responsible for the personal safety and security of its
members? I ask this because if society bears no such responsibility, then
why is it that it interferes with individuals when they threaten the
personal safety and security of others?
>But the individual is responsible. Wholly and totally.
>
Are you saying that the individual is responsible for all his "bad" actions,
but shares responsibility for his "good" actions with society?
You have only pointed out the individual's responsibility for "crimes".
This may salve your conscience, but only by absolving you of any
responsibility for the consequences of your own actions or inactions.
Wayne Johnson
>>Wayne:
>>You speak as if this animal that I didn't kill was without free will;
>>that he could not control his own actions, and that it was up to me
>>(and others who knew him as I did) to protect the lives of his future
>>victims.
>>
>Dave:
>Again, this is only true if I was laying blame; I was not. The simple fact
>is that if the decision had gone the other way, this "animal" would not
>have been around to claim his "future" victims. This is a consequence of
>the decision. Whether the decision was "faulty", I leave in the hands of
>the fully aware person who made the decision. At most, I am adding to
>full awareness.
Consequence implies inevitability. (Whew!) By your reasoning, all
people who represent a potential danger to others should be killed, by
me, at the earliest opportunity. This decision I make, all the time.
Perhaps I should kill that 80 year old, half blind driver over there
who just missed those schoolkids. Perhaps I should kill the designer
of the .44 Magnum revolver. Or should I restrict my death penalties
to only the "malicious" and dangerous types?
The heir to the Seagram's fortune should be on my death list,
according to this idea, since his products lead to the death of many
people. Yet I feel no need to do this. I think you need to work
harder to make me aware of my responsibility, and the consequence of
my inaction.
>>Wayne:
>>Thus when the individual decides to murder, it is not society which is
>>at fault; it is the individual. Even failing to stop that individual
>>after the first crime is not cause to say that society killed his
>>second victim, or his third. If society wants him to stop
>>immediately, society takes action.
>Dave:
>But is not society responsible for the personal safety and security of its
>members? I ask this because if society bears no such responsibility, then
>why is it that it interferes with individuals when they threaten the
>personal safety and security of others?
Yes, it is. That is why it makes laws, and offers police, fire, and
health services. This cannot be a "no sparrow shall fall" plan, where
everyone has a bodyguard - or a personal vendetta plan.
>>Wayne:
>>But the individual is responsible. Wholly and totally.
>>
>Are you saying that the individual is responsible for all his "bad" actions,
>but shares responsibility for his "good" actions with society?
That seems to be the general idea. You're either a good citizen, or a
bad citizen.
>Dave:
>You have only pointed out the individual's responsibility for "crimes".
>This may salve your conscience, but only by absolving you of any
>responsibility for the consequences of your own actions or inactions.
Hoodlums, megalomaniacs, kidnappers, and other cretins rely heavily on
this notion to control others. You have just repeated the line, "Do
this, or I'll kill the hostages," and then put the blame on the deaths
on those who don't play along.
When the assholes of the world - of which, unfortunately, there is no
current shortage - decide to disrupt the already careworn fabric of
civilization, it will be in this fashion. We will be drawn to their
level of anger, bad decisions, selfishness, and needless death, and
the excuse will be, "Well, I couldn't see any other way to deal with
it."
Whether the decision was "faulty", I leave in the hands of the fully
aware person who made the decision. At most, I am adding to
full awareness.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Not unless "genetic component to stupidity" means that every stupid person
>>has this component, rather than that the probability that someone is stupid
>>is greater if they have it than if they don't.
>First definition was always implied.
As you wish.
But it doesn't make any sense. That is, I've never heard of something with
a genetic component that worked this way and was still only a component.
If a quality varies for multiple reasons, there are people who are below
normal and yet don't have all reasons apply--if there is a genetic component
to being short, that means that people with certain genes are shorter than
people without, but since there are other components (such as poor nutrition),
a person with average genes but poor nutrition would also be short--it simply
is not true that every single component applies to everyone with the trait.
>>>Certainly one stupid person may hold one specific executive responsible,
>>>but without any evidence of a specific executive's negligence, how likely
>>>is it that all stupid people will blame this one executive?
>>Having random executives face a 50% chance of death does not seem any better
>>to me than having specific executives face a 50% chance of death.
>Nonsense. You have about a 0.2% chance of dying of lung cancer if you
>are a non-smoker and about a 2% chance of dying of lung cancer if you
>are a smoker. However, once you contract lung cancer, you have about an
>85% chance of dying of it. What you have been driving at is because
>"Bob", who has lung cancer, has an 85% chance of dying of lung cancer,
>that "Art" who does not have lung cancer, has an 85% chance of dying of
>lung cancer. It just ain't so, Ken.
If I shoot into a crowd, someone has only a 2% chance (say) of dying from a
bullet, but an 85% chance of dying once they are hit. According to your
reasoning, this is much, much, better than if I were to shoot at a particular
person, who is going to get hit and who has an 85% chance of dying. I don't
buy this.
>And you have created another straw man, since not all executives nor
>all stupid people will be engaged in duels, and the individual involved
>has some feeling of control over the situation.
The fact that _some_ significant number of executives get killed here matters
to me.
>>Loathe taxes as you
>>may, it's unlikely that someone will decide that because you're a Jew and
>>refused to lick a Nazi's boots, and then compounded the offense by refusing to
>>accept a duel, they will therefore impose extra taxes on you, payable directly
>>to the Nazi.
>No, they'll just use the army to march me into death camps.
I object to Nazi-run legal systems just like I object to Nazi-favorable
anarchies.
>>>>Implicit in your attempt
>>>>to argue these things, rather than just say "it doesn't matter whether you
>>>>die in Lunar society, because if you do die, that would be consistent with the
>>>>Lunar moral code even if you personally would rather live", is the idea that
>>>>it _is_ fair in some sense other than internal to the society.
>>>Not so, Ken. What I am saying is that if "society" must exist (which is
>>>an axiom, and not a theorum, something accepted without proof) then the
>>>rules of the society must to some extent supercede the rules that any
>>>particular member of that society would choose to live under.
>>This is non-responsive.
>It certainly is responsive to what you have said. Ken, you consider that
>your moral code, on which you base what is "fair" and "unfair" is universal.
It's non-responsive regardless of what I consider my moral code to be. _You_
have been trying to argue that executives don't have a big chance of death.
_You_ have been trying to argue that Nazis don't easily take over. If it
you really mean to argue only that the society is consistent by its own
standards, you would not be attempting to convince me of these things, since
they would not matter.
>>You're not just _describing_ Lunar society. You're spending whole paragraphs
>>trying to convince me that it doesn't kill off executives, that it's no more
>>coercive than present-day society, etc.
>Executives face death each and every day, as do we all. Below the age of
>fifty, death due to the stupidity of others (and our own stupidity) is
>far more likely than any other death.
This statistic, even if true, is meaningless; whether or not it is likely
has nothing at all to do with whether it would be raised or lowered under
another system.
>It is your mindset that refuses
>to accept the possibility that the probability of early death of an
>executive (arguably one of the more productive members of society) might
>be reduced.
If you meant what you are saying, _whether or not the probability of death is
reduced is not relevant_. Really. If all that you're saying is that your
society works by its own standards, then there would be no reason to say
anything at all about the death rate of executives, because a high death rate
is just as compatible as a low death rate with working by the society's
standards.
>If the death rate for executives is no greater than at present, then
>it's no more "risky" for executives than it is today.
If you really mean that the society works by its own standards, then you have
no reason to bother convincing me that the risk is not high; a society with
a high risk adheres to its own standards just as well as one with a low risk.
>>I agree that Lunar society would work--by its own standards, not mine. Howev-
>>er, likewise, Nazi Germany (at least the anti-semitic aspects) also works by
>>its own standards--its standards say that Jews can be killed, and golly--it
>>actually _does_ allow killing of Jews; it follows its own standards fine. Why
>>should I care that something works by its own standards?
>Correction. Nazi Germany did NOT work by its own standards, since by its
>own standards, the Aryan "race" would naturally rule the world.
My point is that I have little reason to care that a society adheres to its
own standards. If it _didn't_ say that Aryans would rule the world, but did
say that Jews may be killed, it would adhere to its own standards, but this
would not impress me in the least.
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> In article <312040...@haven.ios.com>,
> Noah Benjamin Ravitz <nra...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
> >duel should apologize. Simple.
>
> You haven't been paying attention.
Actually I am new to the thread so I will not object to your tone.
>
> This particular example was about an executive who makes a product used by
> millions of people and is challenged to a duel simply because when you have
> millions of people, a few of them will blame him for mishaps no matter what
> his actual responsibility is.
>
> What he is being accused of by these people (but which he did not actually do)
> is something for which apologies are not acceptable.
i.e. making the executive personally liable for defective product? Ah, and
the remedy to be a duel. I see. Yes, that would be a high standard of
responsibility...he would have to have some defense under the law otherwise
who would open themselves up for such abuse?
What point do you seek to make?
> --
> Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
> http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
>
> "An alien invader has entered our galaxy! It has now entered our universe,
> clearing Saturn... radial velocity KMS minus 8. It is now orbiting directly
> for Earth." --Bad American Dubbing #2 (quoting ???)--what's this from, about, etc?
Noah Ravitz
"Every normal man must at times be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist the
black flag, and begin slitting throats."--H. L. Mencken
NoelLynn
fair!
David MacLean
Noah Benjamin Ravitz <nra...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
[deletia]
>Tell me this--when perp charges from 20 ft., when is one supposed to shoot?
This question, Noah, implies that one is *required* to shoot and illustrates
the mind set that I am arguing against. The training exercise in question
reinforces the idea that the officer must shoot. However, in the vast
majority of cases where the officer and "perp" (short for "perpetrator",
but this is not necessarily the case; sometimes the cops suspect the
wrong person) come within that distance, it is the cop that closed to
that distance, not the "perp".
This "capture at all costs" is fine if the person in question is suspected
of a violent crime, but when it carries over to petty crime, IMO there needs
to be some reevaluation. Someone mentioned "the cycle of urban violence"
but failed to recognize that aggressiveness on the part of the police also
fuels this cycle. Every time they shoot a purse snatcher (for example),
this increases the fear of police and increases the likelihood that the
next confrontation will be violent.
Cops are *not* separate from "the cycle of urban violence"; they are an
integral part of it.
David MacLean
>>duel should apologize. Simple.
>
>You haven't been paying attention.
>
>millions of people and is challenged to a duel simply because when you have
>millions of people, a few of them will blame him for mishaps no matter what
>his actual responsibility is.
>
>What he is being accused of by these people (but which he did not actually do)
>is something for which apologies are not acceptable.
Ken, you ignore completely the fact that a single executive is not the
only one involved in the manufacture of a product used by millions of people.
There are many. Therefore, if a few people misuse the product (contrary
to instruction), there is no one single executive that they have reason to
fault. You also ignore the fact that it is possible to mollify the
irate person. You also ignore the fact that in a duel situation, the
irate person also puts his life on the line. You also ignore the fact that
it takes time to issue the challenge and time between when the challenge is
issued and when the duel commences, time for a second thought.
You have continually overestimated the risk, Ken, even in this simple
example which you set up.
Ken Arromdee
>the remedy to be a duel. I see. Yes, that would be a high standard of
>responsibility...he would have to have some defense under the law otherwise
>who would open themselves up for such abuse?
>What point do you seek to make?
That he would have to have some defense under the law, otherwise who would
open themselves up for such abuse?
The duel was being seriously suggested as a way of solving conflicts, with the
executive's personal liability being touted as one of dueling's good points.
>> --Bad American Dubbing #2 (quoting ???)--what's this from, about, etc?
Bad American Dubbing is a video produced by Japanese animation fans which
collects a lot of examples of badly dubbed Japanese animation. I'm not sure
where the quote is from, but boy it's _bad_. :-)
Bronis Vidugiris
Simon Slavin <sla...@entergrp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
)By tautologies in the deep wood but I have kissed Portishead...
)Plywood tooling frees a decent end-table; Plato fettles morals.
)Cruel and flood displace a creamy yam on the falling hill and the
)mercy is foaled. If the pea-pod inspected devides a feminist to
)tuck (take the hired moss), when it confers the more plantage to
)the four hesitant cur's one. Care for bruisers tightly stood end
)up like a mingy still rates, and flood her witch licks and cords.....
What's this about feminism? Tell us more.
:-)
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Ken, you ignore completely the fact that a single executive is not the
>only one involved in the manufacture of a product used by millions of people.
>There are many. Therefore, if a few people misuse the product (contrary
>to instruction), there is no one single executive that they have reason to
>fault.
I don't find the death of people for this reason to be acceptable even if you
hide such deaths by scattering them among a large group.
>You also ignore the fact that it is possible to mollify the
>irate person.
The inability to mollify the person (or the lack of second thoughts) is
implicit in the problem statement. There will be a certain number of people,
just by the fact that the product is used by so many, who will irrationally
blame the people who produce the product for accidents. Pointing out that not
all people are in that category (i.e. some can be mollified) does not make the
fact that some people are in that category any less of a problem.
Simon Slavin
> ashutosh agrawal <agr...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> > My apologies if I have misunderstood as I have missed part of
> > the thread...
> > Why would dueling be an acceptable way to settle quarrels? [snip]
>
> By tautologies in the deep wood but I have kissed Portishead...
> Plywood tooling frees a decent end-table; Plato fettles morals.
I apologise for the above. I meant no attack on the previous poster.
I decided, for some reason, that the sound of the words was more
interesting than their meaning. Waaaaaay too much coffee.
Simon.
--
"Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig." -- Freud.
My email address will change soon. sla...@somewhere.else may be me.
Mike Persson or Beth Ager
>> By tautologies in the deep wood but I have kissed Portishead...
>> Plywood tooling frees a decent end-table; Plato fettles morals.
>
>I apologise for the above. I meant no attack on the previous poster.
>I decided, for some reason, that the sound of the words was more
>interesting than their meaning. Waaaaaay too much coffee.
Have another cup of java, Simon, and quit apologizing!
--Beth
David G. Bell
dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca "David MacLean" writes:
> In article <31203F...@haven.ios.com>
> Noah Benjamin Ravitz <nra...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
> >Tell me this--when perp charges from 20 ft., when is one supposed to shoot?
>
> This question, Noah, implies that one is *required* to shoot and illustrates
> the mind set that I am arguing against. The training exercise in question
> reinforces the idea that the officer must shoot. However, in the vast
> majority of cases where the officer and "perp" (short for "perpetrator",
> but this is not necessarily the case; sometimes the cops suspect the
> wrong person) come within that distance, it is the cop that closed to
> that distance, not the "perp".
>
> This "capture at all costs" is fine if the person in question is suspected
> of a violent crime, but when it carries over to petty crime, IMO there needs
> to be some reevaluation. Someone mentioned "the cycle of urban violence"
> but failed to recognize that aggressiveness on the part of the police also
> fuels this cycle. Every time they shoot a purse snatcher (for example),
> this increases the fear of police and increases the likelihood that the
> next confrontation will be violent.
>
> Cops are *not* separate from "the cycle of urban violence"; they are an
> integral part of it.
And this is one argument, used by the Police Federation in the UK (more-
or-less a trade union for British Police officers), against the routine
arming of the police. Against that, after the 1990 Worldcon in Holland,
I heard a couple of stories from British fans that the Dutch police,
though armed, were less hostile than the British police.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> Apologies are in order to saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) for I made
> an error in converting between S.I. units and British units. I could have
> issued a cancel, but instead, I waited long enough for the post to reach
> everyone, and am now entering this retraction. If I make a mistake,
> I own up to it.
> >>Still doesn't make any pistol caliber a reliable single shot stop on a
> >>charging person, because there just isn't all that much energy there.
> >>Most people expend more energy to step up on to a chair than there is in
> >>a pistol cartridge.
> >
> >Take a 150 person and have him climb up on a 2 1/2 foot chair. The work
> >done (which equals the energy required to do the work is 375 foot-pounds
> >or about 52 Joules. Take a 147 grain bullet at a velocity of 700 mph,
> >and the kinetic energy is about 933 Joules or 6700 foot-pounds. Please
> >note that I have corrected my overestimate of the weight of the slug,
> >and rounded off, but the difference is a factor of about 18.
> >
>
> And everyone who has followed the discussion so far will see that my error
> was in converting pounds (which are units of force) to kilograms (which are
> units of mass) and then proceding as if the mass were a force.
>
> The corrected figures are 375 foot-pounds = 508 Joules (approximately).
> and 933 Joules = 689 foot-pounds (approximately).
Sorry, you're still wrong. If you get an ammunition chart, which any
firearms manufacturer or sporting goods store should have free, you will see
that a 9mm round has about 150-200 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. I don't remember
the conversion factors but I assure you I am right, or at least much closer
than 689 ft-lbs. You might--MIGHT--get that much power out of a proof-load
.44 Magnum. You're missing another factor of 4 in there somewhere.
>
> But it is not energy that is important here, but power. It takes the same
> amount of energy to lift a 150 pound human being 4 1/2 feet as it does
> to raise a 10 pound weight 37.5 ft. You can take all the time you want
> to lift it to that height, but nobody in their right mind would want to
> be under that weight if it fell. The potential energy of position is
> translated to kinetic energy when it falls. That energy is translated
> to the body in a fraction of a second.
>
> Nobody is likely to be killed hauling a ten pound weight up 37.5 feet;
> death is a real possibility when hit by that 10 pound weight after it
> had fallen 37.5 feet. Yet it is the same energy.
This is exactly right.
> Noah Ravitz
R. A. Holt
technique for training to defend against guns, knives etc, as it as real as you
can get and not get killed doing it.Remember the object of this exercise is not
to get shot, to learn skills which in some situations may save your life. Getting
thrown in class is dangerous too, but in order to learn you have to accept that
danger and overcome it; otherwise you might as well be play acting.
L8r, Coppertop
Ken Arromdee
Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>>Ken, you ignore completely the fact that a single executive is not the
>>only one involved in the manufacture of a product used by millions of people.
>>There are many. Therefore, if a few people misuse the product (contrary
>>to instruction), there is no one single executive that they have reason to
>>fault.
I should point out another fallacy in this which I didn't notice the first
time.
The supposed beneficial effects of duels are predicated on the fact that the
executive is personally responsible for his mistakes and risks his life if he
makes shoddy product. My complaint is that this makes him responsible for
_perceived_ mistakes, and thus he can die just because a few nutcases out of
millions blame him after they remove the safety features from their lawnmower.
However, David's comments here apply to being held responsible _in_general_.
The fact that there are many people involved in creating the product, and
therefore that the executive has a low chance of death, applies to _both_
perceived mistakes and real ones.
In other words, it erodes the supposed beneficial effect of duels just as much
as it erodes the harmful effect. So it has no relevance whatsoever.
David MacLean
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <4fj0r6$b...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>In article <4fc13e$g...@universe.digex.net>
>>nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>>>>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But I do not propose we adopt the old dueling code. Rather, I envision
>>>>>technology taking a hand and handicapping the participants until each has
>>>>>an equal chance of dying. Skill in method would cease to be a factor.
>>>>
>>>It wouldn't take much technology--just flip a coin.
>>
>>more protracted, something that was more of a struggle, and something where
>>the participants would be able to concede defeat short of death.
>
>That's the hellishness of the net....people respond to what you say
>as well as to what you are (probably) thinking.
>>
>>The quickness of the coin flip does not allow for second thoughts in the
>>face of mortality - flip and zap.
>>
>I suppose a system of repeated bets with a number of points equalling
>death could be worked out.
>
Almost certainly. Anything that makes people sweat and really consider
why they are in the situation that they acceded to.
>>I forget the James Bond flick that this was displayed in, but do you remember
>>the one where Bond plays an electronic game with the villian, but the
>>joysticks were electrified with increasing voltage? The game could be
>>handicapped so that the skill levels are equalized, and the voltage levels
>>calibrated to the individual response to pain. The result would be long,
>>painful, and agonizing, and ultimately fatal if both participants had
>>the determination and the belief that they were right.
>>
>I seriously doubt that people's skill levels and pain tolerance
>could be measured that accurately--especially since they'd have
>good reason to conceal their actual capacities.
>
Actually, physiotherapists are now able to accurately determine pain levels
without reference to what the patient says. The new technology is based
on determining nerve firing. To determine the subjects tolerance, some
degree of misdirection must be used; for example, tell the subject you
are measuring his response to pain in his/her left hand and then zap the
right foot, measuring the actual nerve firing and subjective response.
Do this often enough, varying the actual targets and presumed targets enough,
and the level of the "zap" enough, and you will have an accurate picture
of the subjects pain tolerance level.
As to skill level, make the game "adaptive", varying the handicap for each
based on his/her responses.
>>But in most disputes, the issues are too complex for anyone to believe,
>>in the face of death, that they are absolutely correct. Thus, the one
>>who wavers in his/her determination first loses - with no loss of life.
>
>This reminds me of a bit (possibly in one of the Paul Edwin Zimmer
>novels) where an expert swordman is trying to figure out exactly
>what one wants to test in a swordfight--he doesn't come to a
>conclusion.
>
Which, IMO, was the problem with past "duels"; they set out to be "trial
by combat" based on the deeply held believe that "good" will conquer
"evil", but it turned out to be a measurement of the relative skill levels
at the chosen weapon between the participants.
What I want to measure is the level of unshakable belief in the justness of
the cause for which you are risking your life. Method should be subordinate
to the goal.
>>But the risk of loss of life must be there - it is a determining factor
>>of who is "right" and who is "wrong". Not some ambiguous moral code
>>imposed from without, but a very personal determination of right and
>>wrong.
>>
>Of course, this doesn't measure anything other than determination--
>and/or willingness to kill/die. An opponent who believed in the
>value of human life would have a disadvantage.
>
An opponent who believed in the "value of human life" as you put it would
decline challenges. In a duel situation, the participants must believe
that their cause is worth both killing and dying for. The depth of this
belief is what should be tested.
If you could design such a test without the risk of actually being put into
a situation where it is "kill or be kill", I would be interested in hearing
about it.
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
> >You know, in Judaism at least, self-defense is in fact a duty--"If a man
> >comes to kill you, rise and kill him first", I don't have the precise
> >wording. Assuming my time travel hasn't disturbed some butterfly, etc,
> >Hitler is about to make my relatives into soup, or someone's relatives
> >anyhow, and that qualifies as self-defense in my book.
> >
> The interesting question at this point is the nature of time and
> free will. The Hitler before you hasn't killed anyone yet (except
> as a soldier?). Should you wait until at least one person has
> died as a result of Hitler's acions? (Afaik, Hitler didn't personally
> commit any murders.) If you could prevent the Holocaust by becoming
> Hitler's art patron and thus distracting him from politics, is this
> morally better than killing him?
Possibly if you have infinite resources and can travel back again and again
to get it right, perhaps you could indulge in such hair-splitting. If you
have one chance, no, I wouldn't risk it. And no, I wouldn't feel obliged to
wait. My butterfly reference was to a Bradbury story where a time traveler
kills a butterfly and mars the entire future of the world. If you trip some
street urchin who kicks a dog who...long chain of events leading to no
Holocaust, it's possible, but again, I wouldn't chance it.
Franky I'd rather come back with a backpack nuke and take out as many of his
Nazi cadres as possible in order to minimize the risk of someone picking up
his reins. Unforeseen consequences could occur--Hitler could be replaced
with someone worse--but you have to act on the facts available.
>
> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
>
> 12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Noah Ravitz
Love your buttons--send me a catalogue?
See you at Lunacon
Joseph Askew
>If (and this is a big if) a duel kills one of the parties to the
>intractable hostility, the duel will have resolved the dispute, which is
>the most important thing to such a society. (You then have to figure out
>what to do about cultural tropes for taking revenge.)
In the pre-Classical Greek world it end a dispute you had to kill
off not just one of the parties to a dispute but his entire family.
Otherwise they would seek revenge by killing someone else. This is
precisely why they introduced civil courts - to end the wholesale
massacres that accompanied any law suit. Right down to the Christian
era they retained elements of the old system but, including exile.
Joseph
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>>>You speak as if this animal that I didn't kill was without free will;
>>>that he could not control his own actions, and that it was up to me
>>>(and others who knew him as I did) to protect the lives of his future
>>>victims.
>>>
>
>>Again, this is only true if I was laying blame; I was not. The simple fact
>>is that if the decision had gone the other way, this "animal" would not
>>have been around to claim his "future" victims. This is a consequence of
>>the decision. Whether the decision was "faulty", I leave in the hands of
>>the fully aware person who made the decision. At most, I am adding to
>>full awareness.
>
Wayne, it just don't wash, because that is NOT what I said. Consequence
does not implye inevitability. If I leave a board with a nail sticking up
in it on the ground, it is NOT inevitable that someone step on it, but IF
someone DOES step on it, I have at least some responsibility for the injury.
If I discover a booby trap and do absolutely nothing about it (disarm it,
place warnings, etc), it is not inevitable that someone will set it off,
but IF some DOES set it off, I have at least some responsibility for the
injury or death.
You, sir, have claimed that you made a conscious decision not to kill a
human animal. While it was not inevitable that this human animal would
kill someone, the fact that he did so after you had made your decision
makes those deaths at least partly your responsibility. I'm not saying
100% responsible, nor am I saying 1% responsible, but I am saying that
your responsibility is greater than zero.
>By your reasoning, all
>people who represent a potential danger to others should be killed, by
>me, at the earliest opportunity.
Not so, since *everybody* represents a "potential danger to others".
But you are skirting the issue, since by the way you have described this
"animal", you knew that there was a probability approaching unity that
he would kill human beings if not killed first.
>This decision I make, all the time.
>Perhaps I should kill that 80 year old, half blind driver over there
>who just missed those schoolkids. Perhaps I should kill the designer
>of the .44 Magnum revolver. Or should I restrict my death penalties
>to only the "malicious" and dangerous types?
>
Wayne, I have never once said that you should kill anyone. What I am
trying to do is get you to admit that through your conscious decision
not to kill this animal, he was able to kill someone else. It is partly
your responsibility, no matter how hard you try to wriggle out of it.
And no, I'm not saying that you should be punished for allowing this killer
to live, but neither am I saying that you should be rewarded for making
the "right" moral choice. It is you who has to make the determination
as to whether you were "wrong" or "right". However, deliberately evading
any and all responsibility for the deaths of the "animal's" victims can
hardly lead to an honest evaluation of whether you acted rightly or wrongly.
>The heir to the Seagram's fortune should be on my death list,
>according to this idea, since his products lead to the death of many
>people. Yet I feel no need to do this. I think you need to work
>harder to make me aware of my responsibility, and the consequence of
>my inaction.
>
Wayne, the maker of a product that is clearly known to be dangerous can
hardly be held responsible for the products misuse. If I take rat poison
and kill rats (the four legged kind), I am not misusing the product, but
if I use it to kill you (hypothetically, of course), then it is hardly the
manufacturer's fault.
Alcohol has been used as a social lubricant for all of human history,
and most likely through much of human prehistory. It is not the alcohol
that is the problem, but the individual's use of the product.
But again, you are wriggling. You knew, with a great deal of certainty,
that eventually this "animal", whom you made a conscious decision not
to kill, would eventually, with malicious and deliberate intent, kill
somebody. For this, you bear at least some responsibility.
>>>Wayne:
>>>Thus when the individual decides to murder, it is not society which is
>>>at fault; it is the individual. Even failing to stop that individual
>>>after the first crime is not cause to say that society killed his
>>>second victim, or his third. If society wants him to stop
>>>immediately, society takes action.
>
>>Dave:
>>But is not society responsible for the personal safety and security of its
>>members? I ask this because if society bears no such responsibility, then
>>why is it that it interferes with individuals when they threaten the
>>personal safety and security of others?
>
>Yes, it is. That is why it makes laws, and offers police, fire, and
>health services. This cannot be a "no sparrow shall fall" plan, where
>everyone has a bodyguard - or a personal vendetta plan.
>
Why not? You've made a bold statement. Defend it.
>>>Wayne:
>>>But the individual is responsible. Wholly and totally.
>>>
>
>>Are you saying that the individual is responsible for all his "bad" actions,
>>but shares responsibility for his "good" actions with society?
>
>That seems to be the general idea. You're either a good citizen, or a
>bad citizen.
>
Huh? But that's tantamont to saying that society can do no evil and that
all good stems from society.
>>Dave:
>>You have only pointed out the individual's responsibility for "crimes".
>>This may salve your conscience, but only by absolving you of any
>>responsibility for the consequences of your own actions or inactions.
>
>Hoodlums, megalomaniacs, kidnappers, and other cretins rely heavily on
>this notion to control others. You have just repeated the line, "Do
>this, or I'll kill the hostages," and then put the blame on the deaths
>on those who don't play along.
>
Then you are saying that the FBI had absolutely NO responsibility whatsoever
for the deaths of children in Waco, Texas?
Wayne, you're taking a black and white approach to this. When I say "some
responsibility", I am decidedly *not* saying "all blame", yet you repeatedly
attempt to make it as if I said, boldly, "By letting this animal live,
you and only you are totally responsible and must accept all blame for the
death of his victims." This I did not do.
But it does illustrate quite plainly one of my main criticisms of modern,
western, industrialized societies; citizens tend to want to shift *all*
responsibility for their actions and decisions to someone or something
else, especially when the consequences of those actions or decisions are
not what you want.
>When the assholes of the world - of which, unfortunately, there is no
>current shortage - decide to disrupt the already careworn fabric of
>civilization, it will be in this fashion. We will be drawn to their
>level of anger, bad decisions, selfishness, and needless death, and
>the excuse will be, "Well, I couldn't see any other way to deal with
>it."
>
Beautiful poetry. Unfortunately, as with most poetry, it deals in what
should be, and not what is.
>Whether the decision was "faulty", I leave in the hands of the fully
>aware person who made the decision. At most, I am adding to
>full awareness.
Can't get out of it that easily, Wayne, since by your dismissal of *any*
responsibility, you deny that you are adding anything to "full awareness".
And whether the decision was "faulty" or not is strictly up to you.
However, your overeager defence coupled with your strenuous attempts to
reinterpret what I have said into things that I have decidedly not said
leads one to the conclusion that Shakespeare drew centuries ago: "Methinks
he doth protest too much!"
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4fuljj$k...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>Not unless "genetic component to stupidity" means that every stupid person
>>>has this component, rather than that the probability that someone is stupid
>>>is greater if they have it than if they don't.
>>First definition was always implied.
>
>As you wish.
>
>But it doesn't make any sense. That is, I've never heard of something with
>a genetic component that worked this way and was still only a component.
Sure you have. The difference is between "necessary" condition and
"sufficient" condition. For example, fuel may be a necessary component
of fire, but it is not a sufficient condition.
>If a quality varies for multiple reasons, there are people who are below
>normal and yet don't have all reasons apply--if there is a genetic component
>to being short, that means that people with certain genes are shorter than
>people without, but since there are other components (such as poor nutrition),
>a person with average genes but poor nutrition would also be short--it simply
>is not true that every single component applies to everyone with the trait.
>
Again, the difference between necessary and sufficient. Are you saying that
human genetics have nothing at all to do with a malnourished human growing
up short instead of growing up tall and extremely thin?
>>>>Certainly one stupid person may hold one specific executive responsible,
>>>>but without any evidence of a specific executive's negligence, how likely
>>>>is it that all stupid people will blame this one executive?
>>>Having random executives face a 50% chance of death does not seem any better
>>>to me than having specific executives face a 50% chance of death.
>>Nonsense. You have about a 0.2% chance of dying of lung cancer if you
>>are a non-smoker and about a 2% chance of dying of lung cancer if you
>>are a smoker. However, once you contract lung cancer, you have about an
>>85% chance of dying of it. What you have been driving at is because
>>"Bob", who has lung cancer, has an 85% chance of dying of lung cancer,
>>that "Art" who does not have lung cancer, has an 85% chance of dying of
>>lung cancer. It just ain't so, Ken.
>
>If I shoot into a crowd, someone has only a 2% chance (say) of dying from a
>bullet, but an 85% chance of dying once they are hit. According to your
>reasoning, this is much, much, better than if I were to shoot at a particular
>person, who is going to get hit and who has an 85% chance of dying. I don't
>buy this.
>
Of course you don't, since you are saying that it is predetermined that
this particular individual is destined to die from a bullet. However, you
have no way of determining which person in a crowd is going to be hit.
It is NOT "If I shoot into a crowd, *someone* has only a 2% chance of dying";
it is "If I shoot into a crown, *everyone* has only a 2% chance of dying".
The size of the "crowd" is easily calculated as 42.5 (half a man, oh my God
Each has a probability of 1 in 42.5 of being hit by your bullet, and if hit,
an 85% chance of dying.
Thus, each has a 2% chance of dying before the bullet is fired. *After*
the bullet is fired and someone is hit, the odds change. Given that you
have only one shot, the other 41.5 men have a zero percent chance of
dying by your bullet, and the man that was hit has an 85% chance of dying.
Given a choice between being dead in your sites, alone, and being able
to hide in a crowd, my odds are better hiding in the crowd. If it is
me that is hit, then I'm down to the odds of a face to face encounter,
but I don't KNOW that I will be the one that is hit beforehand.
Probability is about uncertainty. No matter how uncomfortable uncertainty
is to you, you'll always encounter it.
>>And you have created another straw man, since not all executives nor
>>all stupid people will be engaged in duels, and the individual involved
>>has some feeling of control over the situation.
>
>The fact that _some_ significant number of executives get killed here matters
>to me.
>
"Significant" is a question begging term. If we discount executives who are
killed "justifiably", ie, it was their deliberate decision that caused
damage to the extent that a duel was precipitated, then "significant" becomes
"greater than those executives killed through the stupid actions of others
in our current society". How much greater? How high is "up"?
It seems that "significant" quickly looses significance.
>>>Loathe taxes as you
>>>may, it's unlikely that someone will decide that because you're a Jew and
>>>refused to lick a Nazi's boots, and then compounded the offense by refusing to
>>>accept a duel, they will therefore impose extra taxes on you, payable directly
>>>to the Nazi.
>>No, they'll just use the army to march me into death camps.
>
>I object to Nazi-run legal systems just like I object to Nazi-favorable
>anarchies.
>
But you have never encountered, in real life or in history, a Nazi-favorable
anarchy, since no anarchy in any form has ever existed as a social structure.
That such an system would be "Nazi-favorable" is merely speculation on
your part, bolstered not by rational argument but emotion.
On the other hand, dictatorial states have existed, and your life experience
in getting ordered around allows you to project what happens in them. This
is not the case with anarchy, since you have never even had a hint of
experience in living without rules.
>>>>>Implicit in your attempt
>>>>>to argue these things, rather than just say "it doesn't matter whether you
>>>>>die in Lunar society, because if you do die, that would be consistent with the
>>>>>Lunar moral code even if you personally would rather live", is the idea that
>>>>>it _is_ fair in some sense other than internal to the society.
>>>>Not so, Ken. What I am saying is that if "society" must exist (which is
>>>>an axiom, and not a theorum, something accepted without proof) then the
>>>>rules of the society must to some extent supercede the rules that any
>>>>particular member of that society would choose to live under.
>>>This is non-responsive.
>>It certainly is responsive to what you have said. Ken, you consider that
>>your moral code, on which you base what is "fair" and "unfair" is universal.
>
>It's non-responsive regardless of what I consider my moral code to be. _You_
>have been trying to argue that executives don't have a big chance of death.
How "big" is "big"? Contrary to your implication, all executives would not
have a 50% chance of dying in a duel.
How high is "up"? How long is a piece of rope?
Each and every executive now living has exactly the same chance of death
as you and I have - unity. We'll all die.
>_You_ have been trying to argue that Nazis don't easily take over. If it
>you really mean to argue only that the society is consistent by its own
>standards, you would not be attempting to convince me of these things, since
>they would not matter.
>
Sorry Ken, but I have been arguing that such a system could work. It is you
that is raising the objections, and it is I who has been shooting those
objections down. You have yet to come up with one undeniable reason why
such a society would not work. As you go on, your frustration level is
rising; this is apparent because I would not have suspected you of attempting
to argue probability based on emotions and not mathmatics.
>>>You're not just _describing_ Lunar society. You're spending whole paragraphs
>>>trying to convince me that it doesn't kill off executives, that it's no more
>>>coercive than present-day society, etc.
>>Executives face death each and every day, as do we all. Below the age of
>>fifty, death due to the stupidity of others (and our own stupidity) is
>>far more likely than any other death.
>
>This statistic, even if true, is meaningless; whether or not it is likely
>has nothing at all to do with whether it would be raised or lowered under
>another system.
>
Correct, which I refer to later.
>>It is your mindset that refuses
>>to accept the possibility that the probability of early death of an
>>executive (arguably one of the more productive members of society) might
>>be reduced.
>
>If you meant what you are saying, _whether or not the probability of death is
>reduced is not relevant_. Really. If all that you're saying is that your
>society works by its own standards, then there would be no reason to say
>anything at all about the death rate of executives, because a high death rate
>is just as compatible as a low death rate with working by the society's
>standards.
>
Temper, temper, Ken. I stated that under the lunar system, it just might
be possible for the death rate of executives to be reduced compared to the
present system. It is you who brought in the attempt to make it seem as
if there would be a wholescale slaughter of executives. It was irrelevant
to whether the system worked by it's own standards, but very relevant to
whether the system would work at all.
>>If the death rate for executives is no greater than at present, then
>>it's no more "risky" for executives than it is today.
>
>If you really mean that the society works by its own standards, then you have
>no reason to bother convincing me that the risk is not high; a society with
>a high risk adheres to its own standards just as well as one with a low risk.
>
And if this is your conclusion, you need not have responded.
>>>I agree that Lunar society would work--by its own standards, not mine. Howev-
>>>er, likewise, Nazi Germany (at least the anti-semitic aspects) also works by
>>>its own standards--its standards say that Jews can be killed, and golly--it
>>>actually _does_ allow killing of Jews; it follows its own standards fine. Why
>>>should I care that something works by its own standards?
>>Correction. Nazi Germany did NOT work by its own standards, since by its
>>own standards, the Aryan "race" would naturally rule the world.
>
>My point is that I have little reason to care that a society adheres to its
>own standards. If it _didn't_ say that Aryans would rule the world, but did
>say that Jews may be killed, it would adhere to its own standards, but this
>would not impress me in the least.
But Ken, it *DID* say so, and used it as a basis for killing Jews and other
non-Aryans. And you repeatedly use Nazi Germany as a counter example to
the Lunar anarchy, but now you want to change the very foundation on which
Nazism was based.
It occurs to me that it is not Nazi Germany that you are angry at, but the
deeply held belief that non-Jews just want to kill Jews, for no reason
whatsoever other than the fact that they are Jews.
America, in it's swing to the political and Christian right must really
terrify you. I don't blame you in the least. However, the "hunker down"
approach feeds the fears (and the egos) of those who would oppress.
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Again, the difference between necessary and sufficient. Are you saying that
>human genetics have nothing at all to do with a malnourished human growing
>up short instead of growing up tall and extremely thin?
It's hard for me to figure out your confusion here.
Your argument about stupid people requires that genetics be a necessary
condition of stupidity--that every single person who is stupid also has
"stupidity" genes--although it doesn't require the converse.
Genetics are _not_ a necessary condition for being short. That is, someone
with average genes and poor nutrition may be short--it's not true that every
single short person has "shortness" genes.
In fact, I can't think of cases where genetics is a necessary condition for
_anything_ that isn't essentially completely genetically-based. The situation
you postulate for stupidity, where every single stupid person has genes for
stupidity, yet there are other factors that affect stupidity, just doesn't
happen.
>>If I shoot into a crowd, someone has only a 2% chance (say) of dying from a
>>bullet, but an 85% chance of dying once they are hit. According to your
>>reasoning, this is much, much, better than if I were to shoot at a particular
>>person, who is going to get hit and who has an 85% chance of dying. I don't
>>buy this.
>Of course you don't, since you are saying that it is predetermined that
>this particular individual is destined to die from a bullet. However, you
>have no way of determining which person in a crowd is going to be hit.
Well, so? The same number of people die either way, if I pick a person and
kill them, or if I use a method that randomly kills one person.
>Given a choice between being dead in your sites, alone, and being able
>to hide in a crowd, my odds are better hiding in the crowd. If it is
>me that is hit, then I'm down to the odds of a face to face encounter,
>but I don't KNOW that I will be the one that is hit beforehand.
An executive would certainly prefer being part of a large crowd (of people
working for the company) containing one random target, rather than being a
known target all by himself.
However, _I_ don't. I consider the two situations equally undesirable in
a society, because the same number of targets exist in both places. The risk
to a random member of society is the same in each case, even though in one
case it's less concentrated on executives than in the other.
>>>>Loathe taxes as you
>>>>may, it's unlikely that someone will decide that because you're a Jew and
>>>>refused to lick a Nazi's boots, and then compounded the offense by refusing to
>>>>accept a duel, they will therefore impose extra taxes on you, payable directly
>>>>to the Nazi.
>>>No, they'll just use the army to march me into death camps.
>>I object to Nazi-run legal systems just like I object to Nazi-favorable
>>anarchies.
>But you have never encountered, in real life or in history, a Nazi-favorable
>anarchy, since no anarchy in any form has ever existed as a social structure.
>That such an system would be "Nazi-favorable" is merely speculation on
>your part, bolstered not by rational argument but emotion.
When I suggested the possibility that such a system could make me pay Nazis
for "offending" them, you replied "No, they'll just use the army to march me
into death camps." Assuming this was intended as a reply at all, it appears
to mean something like "this system is better because having to pay Nazis is
better than being killed by them". (Of course, you can always accuse me of
putting words in your mouth, since you didn't _explicitly_ say that.) Such a
reply implicitly assumes that paying Nazis _is_ possible under your system,
so it is too late now to tell me that it's not possible, unless you wish to
discard your earlier argument.
>>>It certainly is responsive to what you have said. Ken, you consider that
>>>your moral code, on which you base what is "fair" and "unfair" is universal.
>>It's non-responsive regardless of what I consider my moral code to be. _You_
>>have been trying to argue that executives don't have a big chance of death.
>How "big" is "big"?
"Big" relative to your own argument. Your argument implicitly assumes that
certain size chances are acceptable--by you--and other sizes are not. This
size boundary, whatever it is, is the "big" I refer to.
>>_You_ have been trying to argue that Nazis don't easily take over. If it
>>you really mean to argue only that the society is consistent by its own
>>standards, you would not be attempting to convince me of these things, since
>>they would not matter.
>Sorry Ken, but I have been arguing that such a system could work. It is you
>that is raising the objections, and it is I who has been shooting those
>objections down. You have yet to come up with one undeniable reason why
>such a society would not work.
Of course it works, by its own standards. But I don't _care_ that it works
by its own standards. Why should I?
Under your definition of "work", where "work" means "work by its own stan-
dards", my arguments about Nazis and such _aren't arguments that the society
doesn't work_. Telling me that the society works by its own standards is
non-responsive.
You can't have it both ways. If you mean that the society works by its own
standards, convincing me that it works by my standards is not on-topic. On
the other hand, if you attempt to convince me that it works by my standards
(such as not allowing easy Nazi takeovers), whether it works by its own
standards is not on-topic. As it is, you're trying to convince me that it
works by my standards, but switching to "oh, I just meant it works by its
own standards" whenever you can't prove the former.
>It occurs to me that it is not Nazi Germany that you are angry at, but the
>deeply held belief that non-Jews just want to kill Jews, for no reason
>whatsoever other than the fact that they are Jews.
The reason I use Nazi Germany as an example is because it is less prone to
certain kinds of side arguments. For instance, if I were to say that a
system allows the Communists to take over, that would be sidetracked into
arguments about whether one should want the Communists to take over. Nobody
would try to argue that I should want the Nazis to take over. Furthermore,
using an actual historical example prevents arguments that certain things
cannot happen (since they actually _did_ historically happen).
Wayne Johnson
>You, sir, have claimed that you made a conscious decision not to kill a
>human animal. While it was not inevitable that this human animal would
>kill someone, the fact that he did so after you had made your decision
>makes those deaths at least partly your responsibility. I'm not saying
>100% responsible, nor am I saying 1% responsible, but I am saying that
>your responsibility is greater than zero.
I'd hate to quantify that at all. His conviction, which put him on
Death Row, was ironically based on his part in conspiracy for murder.
I know of two direct victims of his, but he was convicted the same way
Manson was - for getting minions to do the job.
How do you quantify that?
[On preventive killing]
>But you are skirting the issue, since by the way you have described this
>"animal", you knew that there was a probability approaching unity that
>he would kill human beings if not killed first.
Actually, I'm not trying to skirt the issue, but put it in real-world
terms. Not being authorized to kill creatures like this by my fellow
citizens, my execution of him would be considered murder. A murder
conviction is not a formality; it can be a death sentence.
>Wayne, I have never once said that you should kill anyone. What I am
>trying to do is get you to admit that through your conscious decision
>not to kill this animal, he was able to kill someone else. It is partly
>your responsibility, no matter how hard you try to wriggle out of it.
>And no, I'm not saying that you should be punished for allowing this killer
>to live, but neither am I saying that you should be rewarded for making
>the "right" moral choice. It is you who has to make the determination
>as to whether you were "wrong" or "right". However, deliberately evading
>any and all responsibility for the deaths of the "animal's" victims can
>hardly lead to an honest evaluation of whether you acted rightly or wrongly.
Well, my decision can be viewed through moral lenses of all colors,
and I have done so many times. It took years to come to grips with
the fact that I had a chance to get revenge and did not take it.
Should I get a pat on the back? In a word, yes. I was not raised or
trained to kill without remorse, though the object of my rage wasn't,
either; he did it for fun, and power. I was raised and trained to
respect the law, and the reasons for its existence. Had other people
who knew of this man's depradations done what they could and should
have done, he would not have become the killer he was, including his:
Parents (I met them, after the second fight. Ineffectual snivelers)
Teachers and adminstrators (they shifted him from school to school,
instead of dealing with him)
Cops (he's just another ghetto boy street thug- do the paperwork)
Neighbors
Prosecutors
I could go on, but the idea that a seventeen year old high school
honors student somehow failed society for not committing a murder is a
little bit off the mark. Maybe a hell of a lot off the mark.
For it would have been murder, no matter how you dress it up.
>But again, you are wriggling. You knew, with a great deal of certainty,
>that eventually this "animal", whom you made a conscious decision not
>to kill, would eventually, with malicious and deliberate intent, kill
>somebody. For this, you bear at least some responsibility.
Responsibility. "...some responsibility".
Having accepted my society's views on murder, and laying in wait to
commit it; having accepted my role in my family, community, and
country on shooting someone without due process of law; having seen
the results of revenge killing at even my young age at that time, I
must say clearly that holding me personally responsible for this
gangster's subsequent actions in any degree is ludicrous.
By your reasoning, anyone with an interaction with him that gave them
knowledge of his evil, that did not summarily execute him, is a moral
imbecile or somehow a supporter of his actions. Your righteous
compass is fixed, Dave, and it's pointed straight to Hell, which is
where those with good intentions usually wind up. I wasn't ready then
to murder my way into anyone's good graces, and I'm not ready to now,
either.
>>>Dave:
>>>But is not society responsible for the personal safety and security of its
>>>members?
No. For proof, see "bungee-jumping".
>> I ask this because if society bears no such responsibility, then
>>>why is it that it interferes with individuals when they threaten the
>>>personal safety and security of others?
Again, see "bungee-jumping". Society asks that you adhere to the
rules, which essentially say, "have fun, but don't let your false
teeth fall out and bite off someone's ear".
>>Yes, it is. That is why it makes laws, and offers police, fire, and
>>health services. This cannot be a "no sparrow shall fall" plan, where
>>everyone has a bodyguard - or a personal vendetta plan.
>Why not? You've made a bold statement. Defend it.
Attack it, first.
>>>Are you saying that the individual is responsible for all his "bad" actions,
>>>but shares responsibility for his "good" actions with society?
Of course. Now, some folks want to blame the guvmint, or rich white
people, or poor black people, for all their problems, but I really
don't buy those arguments. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone
do a good deed without having a lot of interaction with his fellow
human beings either, if in no other role than that of an appreciative
audience. Did you mean something else?
>Huh? But that's tantamont to saying that society can do no evil...
Individual people can do evil. Society is a description of a group of
individuals. No, societies can't do evil...every individual in the
mob has a name.
> and that all good stems from society.
See above.
>Then you are saying that the FBI had absolutely NO responsibility whatsoever
>for the deaths of children in Waco, Texas?
None whatsoever. Unless, of course, you can prove that the nuts
inside the compound were hell-bent on saving the kids, and the FBI was
trying to kill the kids.
>Wayne, you're taking a black and white approach to this. When I say "some
>responsibility", I am decidedly *not* saying "all blame", yet you repeatedly
>attempt to make it as if I said, boldly, "By letting this animal live,
>you and only you are totally responsible and must accept all blame for the
>death of his victims." This I did not do.
>But it does illustrate quite plainly one of my main criticisms of modern,
>western, industrialized societies; citizens tend to want to shift *all*
>responsibility for their actions and decisions to someone or something
>else, especially when the consequences of those actions or decisions are
>not what you want.
What's the corollary? I don't trust the average street person with
making the determination that he should allocate my home to the
personal needs of his friends for shelter. Of course, he may feel
responsible for their welfare, and decide to kill me and my family for
his own needs. His needs may be overriding, to him. I trust society,
whatever that is, to make this decision for both of us. The judgement
of any individual can be faulty.
>>When the assholes of the world - of which, unfortunately, there is no
>>current shortage - decide to disrupt the already careworn fabric of
>>civilization, it will be in this fashion. We will be drawn to their
>>level of anger, bad decisions, selfishness, and needless death, and
>>the excuse will be, "Well, I couldn't see any other way to deal with
>>it."
>>
>Beautiful poetry. Unfortunately, as with most poetry, it deals in what
>should be, and not what is.
Thanks. I appreciate that, I really do. I thought I was just being
high-minded or something.
>>Whether the decision was "faulty", I leave in the hands of the fully
>>aware person who made the decision. At most, I am adding to
>>full awareness.
>Can't get out of it that easily, Wayne, since by your dismissal of *any*
>responsibility, you deny that you are adding anything to "full awareness".
>And whether the decision was "faulty" or not is strictly up to you.
>However, your overeager defence coupled with your strenuous attempts to
>reinterpret what I have said into things that I have decidedly not said
>leads one to the conclusion that Shakespeare drew centuries ago: "Methinks
>he doth protest too much!"
Well, Bill had things to say about revenge, but I like his views on
conscience better:
My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
NoelLynn
dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) writes:
>Then you are saying that the FBI had absolutely NO responsibility
whatsoever
>for the deaths of children in Waco, Texas?
>
>
The devil they did! Will people never remember that that fire was started
by a madman who was collecting guns to start hosing down anyone who did
not convert? I've read that ATF file and I've listened to those tapes.
The case was badly managed. The ATF agents knew that Koresh was on to
them. They reported this to their superior. But the grand-standing fool
told them to go ahead and raid anyway. Talk about a tactical nightmare.
FOUR ATF AGENTS DIED IN THAT RAID. I suppose they didn't count because
they were cops.
The case was not started because religon. Koresh was collecting guns and
illegally converting them from semi-auto to automatic weapons. He
continually issued death threats to religous rivals. THIS MAN WAS NO
VALENTINE MICHAEL SMITH, GUYS. It had nothing sexual or religous
indiscressions.
NoelLynn
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Nobody
>would try to argue that I should want the Nazis to take over.
Ken, tragically, I think you assume our society is saner than it is.
(Although I do bless *your* sanity.)
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4g2ehe$n...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Ken, you ignore completely the fact that a single executive is not the
>>only one involved in the manufacture of a product used by millions of people.
>>There are many. Therefore, if a few people misuse the product (contrary
>>to instruction), there is no one single executive that they have reason to
>>fault.
>
>hide such deaths by scattering them among a large group.
>
But you do find the death of people through the negligence or deliberate
decisions of executives to be somehow more acceptable?
Your objection seems to be based mainly on the "innocent" executives who
might be killed in a duel, but you have failed to account for "innocent"
executives that might be (are) killed by the deliberate or negligent
decisions of other executives, eg, the Boeing executive who is killed by
a substandard part in his car knowingly approved by a Ford executive.
>>You also ignore the fact that it is possible to mollify the
>>irate person.
>
>The inability to mollify the person (or the lack of second thoughts) is
>implicit in the problem statement. There will be a certain number of people,
>just by the fact that the product is used by so many, who will irrationally
>blame the people who produce the product for accidents.
But you claimed one in ten, which is a ridiculously high number.
>Pointing out that not
>all people are in that category (i.e. some can be mollified) does not make the
>fact that some people are in that category any less of a problem.
But reducing the number in that catagory reduces executive risk.
David MacLean
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4ga2f2$5...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Again, the difference between necessary and sufficient. Are you saying that
>>human genetics have nothing at all to do with a malnourished human growing
>>up short instead of growing up tall and extremely thin?
>
>It's hard for me to figure out your confusion here.
>
>Your argument about stupid people requires that genetics be a necessary
>condition of stupidity--that every single person who is stupid also has
>"stupidity" genes--although it doesn't require the converse.
>
>Genetics are _not_ a necessary condition for being short. That is, someone
>with average genes and poor nutrition may be short--it's not true that every
>single short person has "shortness" genes.
>
Wrong, Ken. You are looking at genetics in a very limited way, as if I were
saying that the only way to be short was to have "shortness" genes.
However, shortness due to poor nutrition has *also* got a genetic base;
it is in the genetic structure that the physical reaction to poor nutrition
is programmed.
Why is it that the poorly nourished do not grow as tall as those who are
well nourished? Why isn't it that they grow to the same height, but the
poorly nourished don't develop arms, for example? Why don't they just
hibernate? Why don't they just die?
The reason is human genetics; humans react to deprivation during the
formative years with less height, and they do so because that reaction is
programmed into the genetic code.
Are you under the impression that there is just one and only one site in
a human DNA strand that determines height?
>In fact, I can't think of cases where genetics is a necessary condition for
>_anything_ that isn't essentially completely genetically-based. The situation
>you postulate for stupidity, where every single stupid person has genes for
>stupidity, yet there are other factors that affect stupidity, just doesn't
>happen.
>
Many humans carry the genes for Tay-Schacts, Sickle-Cell Anemia or
hemophilia, yet not all suffer the diseases.
>>>If I shoot into a crowd, someone has only a 2% chance (say) of dying from a
>>>bullet, but an 85% chance of dying once they are hit. According to your
>>>reasoning, this is much, much, better than if I were to shoot at a particular
>>>person, who is going to get hit and who has an 85% chance of dying. I don't
>>>buy this.
>>Of course you don't, since you are saying that it is predetermined that
>>this particular individual is destined to die from a bullet. However, you
>>have no way of determining which person in a crowd is going to be hit.
>
>Well, so? The same number of people die either way, if I pick a person and
>kill them, or if I use a method that randomly kills one person.
>
Congratulations (I think). You have just hit it. Now let us review with
names. Let's say that the overall risk of death after being hit by a
bullet is 85% (its not, but let's just say it).
Let us take Ken, and shoot him. Ken now has an 85% chance of dying and
a 15% chance of living.
Let's back up. Let's take Ken *and* Dave, and put them together. A
bullet is going to be fired. Ken has a 50% chance of being hit by
that bullet, and Dave has a 50% chance of being hit by that bullet.
What are Ken's chances of dying by that bullet?
>>Given a choice between being dead in your sites, alone, and being able
>>to hide in a crowd, my odds are better hiding in the crowd. If it is
>>me that is hit, then I'm down to the odds of a face to face encounter,
>>but I don't KNOW that I will be the one that is hit beforehand.
>
>An executive would certainly prefer being part of a large crowd (of people
>working for the company) containing one random target, rather than being a
>known target all by himself.
>
>However, _I_ don't. I consider the two situations equally undesirable in
>a society, because the same number of targets exist in both places. The risk
>to a random member of society is the same in each case, even though in one
>case it's less concentrated on executives than in the other.
>
The *only* way that you can say that the risk to a random member of society
is the same in each case is ceteras parabis, all other things being equal.
However, all other things are NOT equal. In the current debate, for
example, the risk to those "random" members of society of premature death
is NOT solely from gunshots. The risk includes the risk of being killed
through the negligent or deliberate decision of an executive. Confronted
with the possibility of being held accountable with his/her LIFE for
negligent or deliberate decisions, there is a high degree of likelihood
that such negligent or deliberate decisions would decrease, decreasing
the risk to that random member of society being killed prematurely.
Equally, that member's risk of premature death contains a component of risk
caused by the actions of stupid people. Decrease the number of stupid
people, and you reduce the risk of premature death to that random member
of society.
You may find the idea of one on one killing distasteful, to say the least.
But so do most people, including, I might add, myself.
But the threat of actually have to face that distasteful situation is more
than enough reason to alter ones behaviour to lessen the possibility that
ones behaviour has adverse effects. And this is the goal - *not* dueling
for the sake of dueling. By allowing dueling, you guarantee that the
number of people who love the thought of killing will be reduced, mainly
through them killing each other off. You reduce the number of people who
are too stupid or stubborn not to get into duels. You reduce the risk those
two groups impose on the rest of us.
>>>>>Loathe taxes as you
>>>>>may, it's unlikely that someone will decide that because you're a Jew and
>>>>>refused to lick a Nazi's boots, and then compounded the offense by refusing to
>>>>>accept a duel, they will therefore impose extra taxes on you, payable directly
>>>>>to the Nazi.
>>>>No, they'll just use the army to march me into death camps.
>>>I object to Nazi-run legal systems just like I object to Nazi-favorable
>>>anarchies.
>>But you have never encountered, in real life or in history, a Nazi-favorable
>>anarchy, since no anarchy in any form has ever existed as a social structure.
>>That such an system would be "Nazi-favorable" is merely speculation on
>>your part, bolstered not by rational argument but emotion.
>
>When I suggested the possibility that such a system could make me pay Nazis
>for "offending" them, you replied "No, they'll just use the army to march me
>into death camps."
You're confusing two debates, Ken. In a system with "duels", *you* may
refuse to duel because someone challenged you because you refused to lick
a Nazi's boots. That doesn't mean that *all* Jews would refuse to duel.
And it doesn't mean that I would sit around and let the Nazi's force you
to lick their boots.
You can't believe that their were more died in the wool, Deutchelund uber
alles, I'll die for my Nazi ideals than the 12 million non-Aryans who died
in the death camps, do you?
The Nazi's were able to grow and thrive because there was no effective
means to combat them. However, if Germany in the 20's and 30's allowed
duelling, how do you think the leaders would have faired?
>Assuming this was intended as a reply at all, it appears
>to mean something like "this system is better because having to pay Nazis is
>better than being killed by them".
Incorrect. The reply was intended to show that in a dueling system, I
or you or any other individual who was affected by Nazi skullduggery would
have recourse other than that which would get the state on your tail.
It is only in societies that do not have this individual recourse in which
cretin's like Nazi's can survive and even thrive.
>(Of course, you can always accuse me of
>putting words in your mouth, since you didn't _explicitly_ say that.)
Once only, Ken, and you actually did put words in my mouth and I pointed
it out to you. Ken, just because you're frustrated is no reason to accuse
me of things that I have not done.
>Such a
>reply implicitly assumes that paying Nazis _is_ possible under your system,
>so it is too late now to tell me that it's not possible, unless you wish to
>discard your earlier argument.
>
Ken, this is irrelevant, since paying off Nazis (or Mafia, or whatever)
is _just_ as possible under our current system.
Every year, babies die of "natural" causes. It would be no different under
a different political system, but that can hardly be used as a relevant
argument in opposition to implementing such a political system. It would
be like saying, "Communism should not be implemented, because communism
cannot stop the winter from coming".
>>>>It certainly is responsive to what you have said. Ken, you consider that
>>>>your moral code, on which you base what is "fair" and "unfair" is universal.
>>>It's non-responsive regardless of what I consider my moral code to be. _You_
>>>have been trying to argue that executives don't have a big chance of death.
>>How "big" is "big"?
>
>"Big" relative to your own argument. Your argument implicitly assumes that
>certain size chances are acceptable--by you--and other sizes are not. This
>size boundary, whatever it is, is the "big" I refer to.
>
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you do not know how big a risk that I am
willing to accept, how can you argue that I am willing to accept to big
a risk. 'Big' must be relative to your own perceptions, not mine.
What I have been saying is that executives would have a small risk of
premature death, and that the increased component of that risk by allowing
dueling would be offset by reductions in other components of risk of
premature death. In other words, all I have been saying is that the
risk to the executive under the dueling allowed system would not be larger
than his risk now, and may, in fact, be smaller.
Your statement, "_You_ have been trying to argue that executives don't have a
big chance of death." implies disbelief on your part, which means that you
think that executives have a bigger risk of premature death than currently.
My challenge to you was to describe how much bigger is the executive's
risk. It was largely rhetorical, since anybody who claims that a
risk of 85% of death when an individual is hit by a bullet is equivalent
to everybody having an 85% of dying by bullet would not be able to
answer.
>>>_You_ have been trying to argue that Nazis don't easily take over. If it
>>>you really mean to argue only that the society is consistent by its own
>>>standards, you would not be attempting to convince me of these things, since
>>>they would not matter.
>>Sorry Ken, but I have been arguing that such a system could work. It is you
>>that is raising the objections, and it is I who has been shooting those
>>objections down. You have yet to come up with one undeniable reason why
>>such a society would not work.
>
>Of course it works, by its own standards. But I don't _care_ that it works
>by its own standards. Why should I?
>
>Under your definition of "work", where "work" means "work by its own stan-
>dards", my arguments about Nazis and such _aren't arguments that the society
>doesn't work_. Telling me that the society works by its own standards is
>non-responsive.
>
>You can't have it both ways. If you mean that the society works by its own
>standards, convincing me that it works by my standards is not on-topic. On
>the other hand, if you attempt to convince me that it works by my standards
>(such as not allowing easy Nazi takeovers), whether it works by its own
>standards is not on-topic. As it is, you're trying to convince me that it
>works by my standards, but switching to "oh, I just meant it works by its
>own standards" whenever you can't prove the former.
>
Ken, I doubt that *any* society would work by your standards, and I doubt
just as much that I would enjoy living in any society that came close to
your standards.
However, most of your arguments have been emotional. Your continued claims
that Nazi's would take over such a society, despite very reasoned arguments
why they would not (and not only by myself) indicates that you are stuck
in a rut. Your counter arguments all boil down to "the Nazis would take over
because the Nazis would take over".
And Ken, I had no idea that I was supposed to convince you that such a
society would work by _your_ standards. I doubt that I could convince you
that our current society works by _your_ standards
As with *any* society, the question is not whether it works by any
individual's standards, but whether or not the members of that society
will, at the very least, acquiesse to societal standards.
The big problem that I see with you and Loonie society is that you would
not acquiesse to the standards of that society, and therefore would make
yourself a prime target.
>>It occurs to me that it is not Nazi Germany that you are angry at, but the
>>deeply held belief that non-Jews just want to kill Jews, for no reason
>>whatsoever other than the fact that they are Jews.
>
>The reason I use Nazi Germany as an example is because it is less prone to
>certain kinds of side arguments. For instance, if I were to say that a
>system allows the Communists to take over, that would be sidetracked into
>arguments about whether one should want the Communists to take over. Nobody
>would try to argue that I should want the Nazis to take over. Furthermore,
>using an actual historical example prevents arguments that certain things
>cannot happen (since they actually _did_ historically happen).
Just because certain things _did_ historically happen, does not mean that
it is inevitable that they happen. The events in Germany in the 20's
and 30's are unlikely in the extreme to arise in the Loonie society.
David MacLean
>>
>>The actions taken. Really Seth, you sound like I've just stolen your
>>favorite dolly. If you just sat down and thought it through, instead of
>>reacting in a blind rage, you would find that you have been fooled.
>
>I can't help supposing that you utterly mis-read Seth's tone
>in the post you're replying to. I saw nothing in it to suggest
>that he was doing anything but expressing a desire for clarification.
>I certainly didn't see anything in his post to suggest that he
>was in a "blind rage," but perhaps your direct access to Seth's
>state of mind is better than mine.
Isn't it remarkable how so many other people can post telling me
that I'm wrong in my interpretation of Seth's tone, when in fact,
all they have is their *own* interpretations of Seth's tone to go
on.
The only person who can correctly assess whether I have interpretted
Seth's tone correctly is Seth himself, since he is the only one that
can possibly be aware of the emotional state that he was in at the
time of his post. He has corrected me, I have accepted it.
Does it take posts from four other people who have the exact same
access to Seth's inner self as I do, ie, Usenet posts, to tell me
that I was wrong. Thanx muchly, but Seth is a big boy; he can
speak for himself.
Kim Campbell
> (more-
> or-less a trade union for British Police officers), against the
> routine
> arming of the police. Against that, after the 1990 Worldcon in
> Holland,
> I heard a couple of stories from British fans that the Dutch police,
> though armed, were less hostile than the British police.
And as the person in charge of fan "security" , I can wholeheartedly
endorse that! Dutch police are warm cuddly people, particularly when
compared with either Brit or US.
Kim :-)
David MacLean
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) wrote:
>
>>You, sir, have claimed that you made a conscious decision not to kill a
>>human animal. While it was not inevitable that this human animal would
>>kill someone, the fact that he did so after you had made your decision
>>makes those deaths at least partly your responsibility. I'm not saying
>>100% responsible, nor am I saying 1% responsible, but I am saying that
>>your responsibility is greater than zero.
>
>I'd hate to quantify that at all.
Not quantifying it allows you to ignore it.
>His conviction, which put him on
>Death Row, was ironically based on his part in conspiracy for murder.
>I know of two direct victims of his, but he was convicted the same way
>Manson was - for getting minions to do the job.
>
>How do you quantify that?
>
Still the same - not 100%, not even 1%, but some figure greater than
0%.
>[On preventive killing]
>
>>But you are skirting the issue, since by the way you have described this
>>"animal", you knew that there was a probability approaching unity that
>>he would kill human beings if not killed first.
>
>Actually, I'm not trying to skirt the issue, but put it in real-world
>terms. Not being authorized to kill creatures like this by my fellow
>citizens, my execution of him would be considered murder. A murder
>conviction is not a formality; it can be a death sentence.
>
If you are caught, if you are convicted.
But your phrasing intrigues me. "Not being authorized"? Not authorized
by whom? Why does such authority exist? Were you consulted before
being submitted to this authority?
>
>>Wayne, I have never once said that you should kill anyone. What I am
>>trying to do is get you to admit that through your conscious decision
>>not to kill this animal, he was able to kill someone else. It is partly
>>your responsibility, no matter how hard you try to wriggle out of it.
>
>>And no, I'm not saying that you should be punished for allowing this killer
>>to live, but neither am I saying that you should be rewarded for making
>>the "right" moral choice. It is you who has to make the determination
>>as to whether you were "wrong" or "right". However, deliberately evading
>>any and all responsibility for the deaths of the "animal's" victims can
>>hardly lead to an honest evaluation of whether you acted rightly or wrongly.
>
>Well, my decision can be viewed through moral lenses of all colors,
>and I have done so many times. It took years to come to grips with
>the fact that I had a chance to get revenge and did not take it.
>
>Should I get a pat on the back? In a word, yes. I was not raised or
>trained to kill without remorse, though the object of my rage wasn't,
>either; he did it for fun, and power. I was raised and trained to
>respect the law, and the reasons for its existence. Had other people
>who knew of this man's depradations done what they could and should
>have done, he would not have become the killer he was, including his:
>
I just flashed back to "Space Cadet" (in keeping with alt.heinlein).
Do you remember the Commodore's interview after the adventure on Venus?
Why is it that you feel that you should receive some accolade for doing
something that you clearly believe that it was your duty do do?
Is your sense of right and wrong something that you own - or is it something
that has been impressed on you, so much so that you cannot question it?
>Parents (I met them, after the second fight. Ineffectual snivelers)
>Teachers and adminstrators (they shifted him from school to school,
>instead of dealing with him)
>Cops (he's just another ghetto boy street thug- do the paperwork)
>Neighbors
>Prosecutors
>
But doesn't this illustrate exactly what I've been saying all along, ie,
responsibility is passed so often in our society that, in the end, nobody
accepts any responsibility at all.
Wayne, I've been trying to get you to admit that your conscious decision
makes you in some way responsible for the crimes that this "animal"
committed after your decision. This does *not* mean that I hold you
wholely responsible; parents, teachers and administrators, cops,
neighbours, and prosecutors, *along with him*, share responsibility.
But trying to get *anybody* to accept *any* responsibility is like pushing
a glacier back up the mountain with your bare hands.
>I could go on, but the idea that a seventeen year old high school
>honors student somehow failed society for not committing a murder is a
>little bit off the mark. Maybe a hell of a lot off the mark.
>
And maybe not so far off the mark. Pleading youth and inexperience, but
then going on to describe your "comfortable situation" as an honors student
is just another way of avoiding your responsibility, however miniscule that
responsibility is.
>For it would have been murder, no matter how you dress it up.
>
Dress it up as self-defence. Dress it however you want it. You may have
been able to plead a variant of the battered woman's syndrome.
However, your decision circumvented those options.
>>But again, you are wriggling. You knew, with a great deal of certainty,
>>that eventually this "animal", whom you made a conscious decision not
>>to kill, would eventually, with malicious and deliberate intent, kill
>>somebody. For this, you bear at least some responsibility.
>
>Responsibility. "...some responsibility".
>
>Having accepted my society's views on murder, and laying in wait to
>commit it; having accepted my role in my family, community, and
>country on shooting someone without due process of law; having seen
>the results of revenge killing at even my young age at that time, I
>must say clearly that holding me personally responsible for this
>gangster's subsequent actions in any degree is ludicrous.
>
Wriggling again, and deliberately wording it as if I were asking you to
accept total responsibility.
Your original claim was that you made a conscious decision not to kill
this person. If it was not a conscious decision, then no responsibility
whatsoever accrues to you. It was the "conscious decision" that makes
you at least partially responsible for this person's later crimes.
And you were very vehement that it was a conscious decision on your part.
You've stated, clearly and succinctly, that if your decision had gone the
other way, that you would have been held responsible for the consequences
of that decision, and your tone indicates that you would have accepted
that responsibility.
Why is it that you find it hard to accept responsibility for the consequences
for the decision that you did make?
>By your reasoning, anyone with an interaction with him that gave them
>knowledge of his evil, that did not summarily execute him, is a moral
>imbecile or somehow a supporter of his actions.
Correction, Wayne. By my reasoning, anyone with an interaction with him
that gave them knowledge of his evil and *who consciously decided _not_
to execute him* is responsible in at least some small way for his later
actions.
I have not called you a moral imbecile, nor have I claimed in any way that
you were a supporter of his actions. All I have claimed is that since
you made a conscious decision not to kill him, some responsibility accrues
to you for all his actions since the time of that conscious decision.
>Your righteous
>compass is fixed, Dave, and it's pointed straight to Hell, which is
>where those with good intentions usually wind up. I wasn't ready then
>to murder my way into anyone's good graces, and I'm not ready to now,
>either.
>
Nor am I asking you to murder anybody. All I'm asking is that you accept
responsibility for the consequences of your conscious decisions.
>>>>Dave:
>>>>But is not society responsible for the personal safety and security of its
>>>>members?
>
>No. For proof, see "bungee-jumping".
>
>>> I ask this because if society bears no such responsibility, then
>>>>why is it that it interferes with individuals when they threaten the
>>>>personal safety and security of others?
>
>Again, see "bungee-jumping". Society asks that you adhere to the
>rules, which essentially say, "have fun, but don't let your false
>teeth fall out and bite off someone's ear".
>
>>>Yes, it is. That is why it makes laws, and offers police, fire, and
>>>health services. This cannot be a "no sparrow shall fall" plan, where
>>>everyone has a bodyguard - or a personal vendetta plan.
>
>>Why not? You've made a bold statement. Defend it.
>
>Attack it, first.
I just did. You said this *cannot* be a "no sparrow shall fall" plan.
The only reason it cannot be is authority is too concentrated to be
everywhere. However, if authority is distributed equally to all
individuals, authority *is* everywhere.
>
>>>>Are you saying that the individual is responsible for all his "bad" actions,
>>>>but shares responsibility for his "good" actions with society?
>
>Of course. Now, some folks want to blame the guvmint, or rich white
>people, or poor black people, for all their problems, but I really
>don't buy those arguments. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone
>do a good deed without having a lot of interaction with his fellow
>human beings either, if in no other role than that of an appreciative
>audience. Did you mean something else?
Second thoughts, Wayne. "Appreciation" is not equal to "responsibility".
>
>>Huh? But that's tantamont to saying that society can do no evil...
>
>Individual people can do evil. Society is a description of a group of
>individuals. No, societies can't do evil...every individual in the
>mob has a name.
>
Talk to Ken about Nazi Germany.
>> and that all good stems from society.
>
>See above.
>
>>Then you are saying that the FBI had absolutely NO responsibility whatsoever
>>for the deaths of children in Waco, Texas?
>
>None whatsoever. Unless, of course, you can prove that the nuts
>inside the compound were hell-bent on saving the kids, and the FBI was
>trying to kill the kids.
>
Let me get this straight. You're saying that using tanks against a
frame structure in which their are kids without any proof whatsoever
that those kids were being harmed in any way accrues no responsibility
whatsoever to the FBI for the subsequent death of those kids?
Does this mean that if I live in an appartment, and keep jerry cans of
gasoline in my appartment, and, in my absense, there is a fire and the
explosions of those jerry cans kill the kids living above me, I have
absolutely no responsibility for their deaths?
>>Wayne, you're taking a black and white approach to this. When I say "some
>>responsibility", I am decidedly *not* saying "all blame", yet you repeatedly
>>attempt to make it as if I said, boldly, "By letting this animal live,
>>you and only you are totally responsible and must accept all blame for the
>>death of his victims." This I did not do.
>
>>But it does illustrate quite plainly one of my main criticisms of modern,
>>western, industrialized societies; citizens tend to want to shift *all*
>>responsibility for their actions and decisions to someone or something
>>else, especially when the consequences of those actions or decisions are
>>not what you want.
>
>What's the corollary? I don't trust the average street person with
>making the determination that he should allocate my home to the
>personal needs of his friends for shelter. Of course, he may feel
>responsible for their welfare, and decide to kill me and my family for
>his own needs. His needs may be overriding, to him. I trust society,
>whatever that is, to make this decision for both of us. The judgement
>of any individual can be faulty.
>
But this seems to say that when "society" decides, it is not an individual
that decides.
Or, perhaps, that the cumulative decisions of individuals called society
could not possibly be faulty.
>>>When the assholes of the world - of which, unfortunately, there is no
>>>current shortage - decide to disrupt the already careworn fabric of
>>>civilization, it will be in this fashion. We will be drawn to their
>>>level of anger, bad decisions, selfishness, and needless death, and
>>>the excuse will be, "Well, I couldn't see any other way to deal with
>>>it."
>>>
>
>>Beautiful poetry. Unfortunately, as with most poetry, it deals in what
>>should be, and not what is.
>
>Thanks. I appreciate that, I really do. I thought I was just being
>high-minded or something.
>
Isn't it a bitch when you find out that you're wrong.
>>>Whether the decision was "faulty", I leave in the hands of the fully
>>>aware person who made the decision. At most, I am adding to
>>>full awareness.
>
>>Can't get out of it that easily, Wayne, since by your dismissal of *any*
>>responsibility, you deny that you are adding anything to "full awareness".
>
>>And whether the decision was "faulty" or not is strictly up to you.
>
>>However, your overeager defence coupled with your strenuous attempts to
>>reinterpret what I have said into things that I have decidedly not said
>>leads one to the conclusion that Shakespeare drew centuries ago: "Methinks
>>he doth protest too much!"
>
>Well, Bill had things to say about revenge, but I like his views on
>conscience better:
>
>My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
>And every tongue brings in a several tale,
>And every tale condemns me for a villain.
>
Which is, perhaps, why you have continued your defence; somewhere in your
conscience is a little tongue that says that you share some responsibility
and your denial condemns you for a villain.
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Genetics are _not_ a necessary condition for being short. That is, someone
>>with average genes and poor nutrition may be short--it's not true that every
>>single short person has "shortness" genes.
>Wrong, Ken. You are looking at genetics in a very limited way, as if I were
>saying that the only way to be short was to have "shortness" genes.
>However, shortness due to poor nutrition has *also* got a genetic base;
>it is in the genetic structure that the physical reaction to poor nutrition
>is programmed.
In this case, labelling a condition as genetically-based becomes virtually
useless. In particular, for a trait to be genetically-based under your
definition no longer implies that the trait may be selected out of existence
in one generation (the claim you made for genetically-based stupidity).
>The reply was intended to show that in a dueling system, I
>or you or any other individual who was affected by Nazi skullduggery would
>have recourse other than that which would get the state on your tail.
Likewise, any Nazi affected by Jewish intransigence over bootlicking would
have recourse other than using the state.
Of course, you may object that even if the Nazi is genuinely offended by
Jewish refusal to lick his boots, this would be an offense whose harm is
perceived as much less than a 50% chance of death, so an otherwise rational
Nazi would refuse to duel. However, this same objection would apply in the
opposite direction: the harm caused to you by having to lick someone else's
boots is _also_ much less than the harm from a 50% chance of death; this
effect works both ways.
>>Such a
>>reply implicitly assumes that paying Nazis _is_ possible under your system,
>>so it is too late now to tell me that it's not possible, unless you wish to
>>discard your earlier argument.
>Ken, this is irrelevant, since paying off Nazis (or Mafia, or whatever)
>is _just_ as possible under our current system.
Under our system, a Nazi may not use your refusal to duel as evidence of
guilt at the trial; furthermore, the list of offenses for which one may be
tried does not include refusal to lick boots.
>>>>_You_
>>>>have been trying to argue that executives don't have a big chance of death.
>>>How "big" is "big"?
>>"Big" relative to your own argument. Your argument implicitly assumes that
>>certain size chances are acceptable--by you--and other sizes are not. This
>>size boundary, whatever it is, is the "big" I refer to.
>Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you do not know how big a risk that I am
>willing to accept, how can you argue that I am willing to accept to big
>a risk.
My point (in this part of the argument, anyway) is not that the risk you are
willing to accept is too large for me, but rather that you are being
inconsistent in trying to get me to accept it at all.
If you mean that the society works by its own standards, the size of the risk
is not relevant, as long as the society's standards allow it.
Michael Martinez
noel...@aol.com (NoelLynn) wrote:
:In article <4ga2eq$5...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
:dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) writes:
:>Then you are saying that the FBI had absolutely NO responsibility
:>whatsoever for the deaths of children in Waco, Texas?
:The devil they did! Will people never remember that that fire was started
:by a madman who was collecting guns to start hosing down anyone who did
:not convert? I've read that ATF file and I've listened to those tapes.
:The case was badly managed. The ATF agents knew that Koresh was on to
:them. They reported this to their superior. But the grand-standing fool
:told them to go ahead and raid anyway. Talk about a tactical nightmare.
:
:FOUR ATF AGENTS DIED IN THAT RAID. I suppose they didn't count because
:they were cops.
:
:The case was not started because religon. Koresh was collecting guns and
:illegally converting them from semi-auto to automatic weapons. He
:continually issued death threats to religous rivals. THIS MAN WAS NO
:VALENTINE MICHAEL SMITH, GUYS. It had nothing sexual or religous
:indiscressions.
Gee, something *new* to talk about <g>.
You know, we hung Nazis at Nuremburg for not questioning orders. It's a pity
we hold our law enforcement agencies to a lower standard. Makes me feel
really safe at night.
Um. Just out of curiosity.
Why is this discussion now in rec.arts.sf.fandom? Was there a con in Waco or
something?
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Ken Arromdee
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>I don't find the death of people for this reason to be acceptable even if you
>>hide such deaths by scattering them among a large group.
>But you do find the death of people through the negligence or deliberate
>decisions of executives to be somehow more acceptable?
>Your objection seems to be based mainly on the "innocent" executives who
>might be killed in a duel, but you have failed to account for "innocent"
>executives that might be (are) killed by the deliberate or negligent
>decisions of other executives, eg, the Boeing executive who is killed by
>a substandard part in his car knowingly approved by a Ford executive.
Obviously, I disapprove of those too.
>>>You also ignore the fact that it is possible to mollify the
>>>irate person.
>>The inability to mollify the person (or the lack of second thoughts) is
>>implicit in the problem statement. There will be a certain number of people,
>>just by the fact that the product is used by so many, who will irrationally
>>blame the people who produce the product for accidents.
>But you claimed one in ten, which is a ridiculously high number.
I claimed no specific number, but used a number as an example to better get
across points I couldn't with X's and Y's.
Farrell McGovern
NoelLynn (noel...@aol.com) writes:
>>Then you are saying that the FBI had absolutely NO responsibility
>> whatsoever for the deaths of children in Waco, Texas?
>
> by a madman who was collecting guns to start hosing down anyone who did
> not convert? I've read that ATF file and I've listened to those tapes.
> The case was badly managed. The ATF agents knew that Koresh was on to
> them. They reported this to their superior. But the grand-standing fool
> told them to go ahead and raid anyway. Talk about a tactical nightmare.
>
> FOUR ATF AGENTS DIED IN THAT RAID. I suppose they didn't count because
> they were cops.
>
> The case was not started because religon. Koresh was collecting guns and
> illegally converting them from semi-auto to automatic weapons. He
> continually issued death threats to religous rivals. THIS MAN WAS NO
> VALENTINE MICHAEL SMITH, GUYS. It had nothing sexual or religous
> indiscressions.
Either way, the situation was bungled, and it put out a chilling effect
those who don't practice mainstream "whitebread" religion.
ttyl
Farrell
Dave Romm
>
> The devil they did! Will people never remember that that fire was started
> by a madman who was collecting guns to start hosing down anyone who did
> not convert? I've read that ATF file and I've listened to those tapes.
> The case was badly managed. The ATF agents knew that Koresh was on to
> them. They reported this to their superior. But the grand-standing fool
> told them to go ahead and raid anyway. Talk about a tactical nightmare.
>
> FOUR ATF AGENTS DIED IN THAT RAID. I suppose they didn't count because
> they were cops.
>
> The case was not started because religon. Koresh was collecting guns and
> illegally converting them from semi-auto to automatic weapons. He
> continually issued death threats to religous rivals. THIS MAN WAS NO
> VALENTINE MICHAEL SMITH, GUYS. It had nothing sexual or religous
> indiscressions.
Right. I generally refer to this as The Waco Suicides. More and more evangelical
millenialists will want to be martyrs. Get used to a bad decade or so.
--
What to call the next decade? There were the 80s, the 90s and... the Oughts.
Chris Goodwin
>>>Interesting thought, Nancy. I was thinking along the lines of something
>>>more protracted, something that was more of a struggle, and something where
>>>the participants would be able to concede defeat short of death.
Arm wrestling!
(Apologies for any misattribution...)
--
__
arc...@peak.org
Keeper of the Jack Chalker mailing list (chalker-l). E-mail for details
Wayne Johnson
>I just flashed back to "Space Cadet" (in keeping with alt.heinlein).
>Do you remember the Commodore's interview after the adventure on Venus?
>Why is it that you feel that you should receive some accolade for doing
>something that you clearly believe that it was your duty do do?
>Is your sense of right and wrong something that you own - or is it something
>that has been impressed on you, so much so that you cannot question it?
This is the essence of our sub-thread. Commodore Arkwright _did_ pay
the highest compliment possible to Matt... by not dwelling on it. The
point was not that Arkwright ignored the cadet's feats; he brought
each of them in for a personal meeting, and treated them as equals -
the highest compliment possible. It was definitely an accolade.
I also took his advice to Matt to heart - i.e., never lead with your
right - which has stood me in good stead over the years.
As for a sense of right and wrong, a simple thought experiment will
do. Let's have a real world scenario, the same one I went through.
Would you advise your teenaged son to murder a gangster he knew at
school? Would you advise him that the gangster's future victims, were
he not eliminated now, would be forever partly your son's
responsibility?
Would you risk your child's freedom and future, and advise him that he
must commit murder, or forever hold a burden of guilt?
Would you promise this son of yours that you would always have doubts
about his courage, honor, and common sense if he didn't pick up a gun,
creep up on this bad guy, and put a bullet in the back of his head?
I never saw a Heinlein character deal with life this way. Even in
Gulf and Friday, the killers were part of a team, with goals mutually
decided on.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Seth Breidbart
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Isn't it remarkable how so many other people can post telling me
>that I'm wrong in my interpretation of Seth's tone, when in fact,
>all they have is their *own* interpretations of Seth's tone to go
>on.
I would be inclined to feel that somebody who has known me for 20+
years and in many different sets of circumstances (including some
moderately stressful ones) is more likely be be able to interpret my
tone correctly.
>Does it take posts from four other people who have the exact same
>access to Seth's inner self as I do, ie, Usenet posts, to tell me
>that I was wrong.
In some cases, that may be all they have (plus some email, maybe); but
even then, equality isn't present. How many of the newsgroups in
which I'm a regular poster do you read?
> Thanx muchly, but Seth is a big boy; he can
>speak for himself.
To put it mildly :-)
Seth
Brian S. Roe
> The case was not started because religon. Koresh was collecting guns and
> illegally converting them from semi-auto to automatic weapons. He
> continually issued death threats to religous rivals.
Yes, it's true that Koresh was collecting guns and was illegally
converting them. BUT--it's also true that the ATF agents could have
simply pulled him over and arrested him, since they had him under
surveillance for weeks prior to the 'storming of the castle walls'. Seige
warfare is, by it's very nature a bloody kill-fest, and the ATF SHOULD
have taken care of the situation without endangering the lives of so many
people.
Yes, Koresh was wrong, BUT--the ATF bears ALL of the responsibility for
the ancillary deaths of so many people, due to their ineffectiveness
during that situation.
--
Don't forget to call the Alien Empire BBS @ (810) 726-5908
Check out the Alien Empire Web Page @ http://www.umd.umich.edu/~mszlaga/alien/alien-empire.html
Heck--you can even send us e-mail @ alien...@msen.com !!!
David E Romm
kli...@mail.msen.com (Brian S. Roe) wrote:
> Yes, Koresh was wrong, BUT--the ATF bears ALL of the responsibility for
> the ancillary deaths of so many people, due to their ineffectiveness
> during that situation.
Doesn't personal resposibility mean anything to you? Koresh could have
saved all those lives by surrenduring peaceably. He deliberately chose to
be a 'martyr'. I have no sympathy for him or any of his millenialist
followers.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Can't we have one meeting that doesn't end with us digging up a corpse?"
-- The Simpsons
Lee Burwasser
>The case was badly managed. The ATF agents knew that Koresh was on to
>them. They reported this to their superior. But the grand-standing fool
>told them to go ahead and raid anyway. Talk about a tactical nightmare.
>
>FOUR ATF AGENTS DIED IN THAT RAID. I suppose they didn't count because
>they were cops.
>
They do count -- against the "grand-standing fool" who cared more for a
media splash than for the men under his command. The ATF as an
organisation screwed up in putting agents under the command of a
grandstanding fool. The ATF and the FBI screwed up in not consulting
with the local cops, who knew the people and the situation. These are
things that could be corrected, if either the ATF or the FBI wanted to
bother. Evidently, they don't. And the next time a Koresh turns up,
more agents will die so their grandstanding superiors can get media
coverage. Koresh was a madman; grandstanding fools who waste the lives
of their men are a lot worse.
--
Lee Burwasser lburw...@crs.loc.gov
Landover MD USA
*working stiff -- don't blame me for policy*
Brian S. Roe
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
> Doesn't personal resposibility mean anything to you? Koresh could have
> saved all those lives by surrenduring peaceably. He deliberately chose to
> be a 'martyr'. I have no sympathy for him or any of his millenialist
> followers.
Come on!
The ATF, being the supposedly 'responsible' government authority should
have taken into consideration "all those lives" you mentioned when they
engaged in seige warfare with the leader of a fanatical religous sect.
The fact remains that the ATF _COULD_ have simply pulled him over prior to
the 'standoff' and simply arrested him like any other common criminal.
While I do have a great deal of sympathy for all the children who were
killed as a result of this, that doesn't change the fact that the ATF
could have arrested him prior to the escallation (sp?) of the events and
the standoff.
Seth Breidbart
NoelLynn <noel...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4ga2eq$5...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (David MacLean) writes:
>
>whatsoever
>>for the deaths of children in Waco, Texas?
>
>by a madman who was collecting guns to start hosing down anyone who did
>not convert?
1. This is the first time I heard that claim about the purpose of the
gun "collection".
2. The household had fewer guns per adult than the adverage Texas
household. That's a strange version of "collecting".
> I've read that ATF file and I've listened to those tapes.
>The case was badly managed.
To put it mildly. A few months earlier, the local sheriff served
Koresh and Koresh peacefully came to the police station.
>The case was not started because religon. Koresh was collecting guns
more slowly than the average Texas household
> and
>illegally converting them from semi-auto to automatic weapons.
How many guns were actually converted, and did he do that for his own
purposes or because some government agent entrapped him?
> He
>continually issued death threats to religous rivals.
Like, "You'll die and burn in Hell forever"? Seems to me I've heard
that kind of death threat from a lot of religions. Even "I'm going to
kill you" isn't particularly actionable without other support (try
grepping for that phrase on Usenet, for instance).
Seth
Anne B. Nonie Rider
Please take this discussion to the appropriate political newsgroup.
Michael Lazarus
>Actually I thought we were talking about the nature of the society Heinlein
>portrays in Beyond This Horizon. Whether such a society would work in
>practice is another issue as far as I'm concerned. I don't find it wildly
>implausible and I think the business about armed, polite societies has some
>validity -- but I'm not prepared to defend either exceptionally strongly.
Well just having the 2nd Admendment is enough of a validity for the
society. In the South it would be considered paradise
d...@wwa.com
Michael Lazarus (thom...@prysm.net) wrote:
: >Actually I thought we were talking about the nature of the society Heinlein
Indeed, along with all those pork-barrel federal subsidies, I'd wager.
Wayne Johnson
d...@wwa.com () wrote:
>Michael Lazarus (thom...@prysm.net) wrote:
Down this thread lies madness.
We just left an off-thread, meandering, philosophically moribund,
non-Heinlein thread along these same lines that lasted a month, and
brought in more maniacs than a dead buffalo has maggots.
If we are headed for a discussion of politics, please, please trim
alt.fan.heinlein from the session, if at all possible.
If not, to continue, answer this question first: What was
Monroe-Alpha's job?
Wayne "just a test to see if you're really into science fiction"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Nicolaides
In article <4ptl7i$3...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
Wayne, you are sooo right.. I damn near came close to responding to that
thread.. But your threat of forcing an answer to a RAH trivia was enough to
restrain me <g>
Besides, everyone knows that Alfph Monroe was the brother of Ralph Monroe -
the famous Monroe Brothers.. remodeling contractors on Green Acres :) (I
didn't know RAH was a Green Acres Scriptwriter!)
Tom "Televison Brain" Nicolaides
Rules are made for people who are unwilling to make up their own.
-- Chuck Yeager
d...@wwa.com
Wayne Johnson (cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: d...@wwa.com () wrote:
...
: >: Well just having the 2nd Admendment is enough of a validity for the
: >: society. In the South it would be considered paradise
: >Indeed, along with all those pork-barrel federal subsidies, I'd wager.
: Down this thread lies madness.
: We just left an off-thread, meandering, philosophically moribund,
: non-Heinlein thread along these same lines that lasted a month, and
: brought in more maniacs than a dead buffalo has maggots.
: If we are headed for a discussion of politics, please, please trim
: alt.fan.heinlein from the session, if at all possible.
Wayne, it was just a comment. I certainly apologize
for endangering the newsgroup. No sarcasm intended.
: If not, to continue, answer this question first: What was
: Monroe-Alpha's job?
: Wayne "just a test to see if you're really into science fiction"
: Johnson
Actually, I was probably "into" science fiction before you
were "into" long pants. I came across this newsgroup, and
just ducked in to see if anything remained of my one-time
obsession that could be rekindled. I can't even remember the
hero character's name in "Glory Road", but I can still
recall the pleasure of reading a paperback version stuck inside
a high school algebra text during class. I think I recall
Heinlein rhapsodising about a WWII-era airplane called a
"Gooney Bird" in the book, but that is about the level of detail
I command. I fail your test - mea culpa.
Wayne Johnson
d...@wwa.com () wrote:
>Actually, I was probably "into" science fiction before you
>were "into" long pants.
If so, you must be Hugo Gernsback's older brother.
>I came across this newsgroup, andjust ducked in to see if anything
>remained of my one-time obsession that could be rekindled.
Take a stab at some of the "trivia" threads. Worse than hard drugs, I
think...
>I can't even remember the hero character's name in "Glory Road", but I can still
>recall the pleasure of reading a paperback version stuck inside
>a high school algebra text during class.
I thought I invented that trick! And you just gave a dead giveaway -
we're around the same age.
>I think I recall Heinlein rhapsodising about a WWII-era airplane called a
>"Gooney Bird" in the book, but that is about the level of detail
>I command. I fail your test - mea culpa.
OK, here's one you can pass - with what weapon did the hero of Glory
Road excel? (Hint: it wasn't nunchucks!)
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
William George Ferguson
d...@wwa.com () wrote:
>>I can't even remember the hero character's name in "Glory Road", but I can still
>>recall the pleasure of reading a paperback version stuck inside
>>a high school algebra text during class.
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>I thought I invented that trick! And you just gave a dead giveaway -
>we're around the same age.
Well, if you were doing High School algebra when it came out in
paperback, then we were all in high school in the mid-60s
d...@wwa.com () wrote:
>>I think I recall Heinlein rhapsodising about a WWII-era airplane called a
>>"Gooney Bird" in the book, but that is about the level of detail
>>I command. I fail your test - mea culpa.
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>OK, here's one you can pass - with what weapon did the hero of Glory
>Road excel? (Hint: it wasn't nunchucks!)
His brain (well that's how he defeated various opponents, really)
Lady Vivamus of course. Dum Vivamus Vivamus
Gary Farber
Guys, it's charmingly nostalgic to see the return of the Undying Thread,
but you are doing the Triple-Crosspost to rec.arts.sf.fandom,
rec.arts.sf.written, and alt.fan.heinlein again. Could you trim those
headers, please? Probably just a.f.c. is sufficient, but certainly
r.a.sf.fandom should be dropped from this thread, please. Thanks.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright (c) 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Dr Gafia
In article <4ptl7i$3...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) writes:
>Down this thread lies madness.
>
>We just left an off-thread, meandering, philosophically
>moribund, non-Heinlein thread along these same lines that
>lasted a month, and brought in more maniacs than a dead
>buffalo has maggots.
>
>If we are headed for a discussion of politics, please, please
>trim alt.fan.heinlein from the session, if at all possible.
Yes. Ghod knows Heinlein never discussed politics in his
fiction!
8-(|\=^>}
Seriously, if this is being objected to in alt.fan.heinlein,
likewise rec.arts.sf.fandom; anyone in this news group who is
at all interested in following up on this topic should be
encouraged to do so to rec.arts.sf.written.
--rich brown
Shane Glaseman
William George Ferguson wrote:
> Lady Vivamus of course. Dum Vivamus Vivamus
That should be "Dum Vivamus, Vivimus!" (sorry, nitpicker)
Dr Gafia
This appears to be something which has been sent to three news
groups--rec.arts.sf.fandom, rec.arts.sf.written and an 'alt' heinlein
group I didn't bother to write down.
Wouldn't it be nice if the actual discussion could be confined to the two
that are appropriate (i.e., not on rec.arts.sf.fandom)?
Fat chance.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Steve Glover
Shane Glaseman <glas...@courier6.aero.org> wrote:
>That should be "Dum Vivamus, Vivimus!" (sorry, nitpicker)
I prefer "Dum bibimus bibamus"
Steve, hoping he's got his conjugations and subjunctives right (Bibo,
bibere, yes? versus vivo, vivare??)
-- steve....@ukonline.co.uk or kur...@tardis.ed.ac.uk
No longer steve_...@hicom.lut.ac.uk and soon not even
cs...@cds1.dl.ac.uk or ss...@festival.ed.ac.uk
Avedon Carol
ROB HERE:
Oh, no! The-Thread-That-Wouldn't-Die is back!! I thought we'd driven a
stake through the heart of Mr Farber's vile creation, chopped its head
off, stuffed this with garlic, sprinkled holy corflu over the body, and
burned the remains at a crossroads at midnight. How come it returned?
(The silver bullet! We forgot the silver bullet....)
-Rob
David G. Bell
In article <DtB91...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Avedon Carol" writes:
The only way to be sure is to nuke it from orbit.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Thomas Perry
That's "alt.fawn.heinlein", rich. The "w" is invisible but not
silent.
Tom Perry