Hannah Arendt
LANC...@holonet.net
life, I was quick to select a message containing her name that appeared in
my incoming index with a subject listed as, "Hannah Arendt's Wrinkeled".
Needless to say, the content of this message was disappointing to me, and
my desire to see a significant discussion of Hannah Arendt on the Internet
remains unsatisfied.
The ravings of Mr. Zeleny, of course, require no response, except to say
that it is sad to see such foulness coming from Harvard. One assertion
put forward in passing as a fact deserves to be corrected, however, lest
anyone be misled.
Mr. Zeleny asserts that Hannah Arendt...
z> chose to sit out the hostilities in the cushy haven of the American
z> academe
Readers interested in the facts are advised to read chapters 4 and 5 of
Elizabeth Young-Bruehl's biography of Arendt. In May of 1940, Hannah
Arendt was involuntarily transported from Paris and interned in a
detention camp for "enemy aliens" in the south of France. How she was
able to leave she describes in a 1962 letter which Young-Bruehl quotes:
"A few weeks after our arrival in the camp...France was defeated and all
communications broke down. In the resulting chaos we succeeded in getting
hold of liberation papers with which we were able to leave the camp.
There existed no French underground at the time (the French resistance
movement sprang up much later, namely when the Germans decided to draft
Frenchmen for forced labor in Germany whereupon many young people went
into hiding and then formed the maquis). None of us could "describe" what
lay in store for those who remained behind. All that we could do was to
tell them what we expected would happen--the camp would be handed over to
the victorious Germans. (About 200 women of a total of 7,000 left.) This
happened, indeed, but since the camp lay in what later became
Vichy-France, it happened years later than we expected. The delay did not
help the inmates. After a few days of chaos, everything became very
regular again and escape was almost impossible. We rightly predicted this
return to normalcy. It was a unique chance, but it meant that one had to
leave with nothing but a toothbrush since there existed no means of
transportation."
Through a combination of good luck and sharp wittedness, Arendt and her
husband managed to emigrate from Vichy France in January 1941, and, with
the assistance of HIAS, the Jewish immigration agency, they came to New
York 3 months later. During the war years, Arendt was supported partly
with a stipend from the Zionist Organization of America, at least in the
time immediately after her arrival. In November of 1941 she became a
columnist for Aufbau, a German-language newspaper. In 1942 she received a
part-time teaching position at Brooklyn College. Having been an adjunct
instructor at Brooklyn College at one time myself, I think I can say that
no one with knowledge of that situation would describe it as "the cushy
haven of the American academe."
Mr. Zeleny speaks of Arendt's "relucance to risk her hide..." My guess is
that Arendt would have smiled at this and said, "Of course I was
reluctant! What sane person would not have been? But I didn't have any
choice. I was at risk along with everybody else. That I got out alive is
partly due to the fact that I saw the danger when many others did not, but
mainly it is due to the fact that I was very, very lucky."
To those readers who may be upset by the outragiousness of Mr. Zeleny, let
me say that I think Arendt herself would not have been upset by it. Of
course, she would have found it ugly and sad that a person associated with
one of the bastions of American intellectual aristocracy would choose to
express himself so. But Arendt would have recognized Mr. Zeleny's manner
as the symptom of impotent resentment, to which the appropriate response
is not retribution in kind, but empowerment. If there were some positive
possibility that Mr. Zeleny were engaged in producing, the chances are he
would not waste his time being abusive to others.
Ironically, Arendt was never particularly comfortable as an academic, even
later in her life when she arguably did occupy a "cushy haven in the
American academe." She never forgot, or quite forgave, the general
passivity of German intellectuals (including most German Jewish
intellectuals) in the face of the rise of Hitler, and it may not be too
much to say that she came to see the Western intellectual tradition, qua
tradition, as somehow complicit in this.
Hannah Arendt was a philosopher of action, in my opinion one of the
greatest there has been. She spent her life trying to overcome an
intellectual tradition that held out the contemplative life, the
transcendence of practice and of politics, as the highest expression of
human being. She herself was committed to the possibility of politics,
the possibility of action, the possibility of new beginning, as that in
which the truth of human being can be found. At the end of her last book,
The Life of the Mind (left incomplete at her death), she wrote:
"When we directed our attention to men of action, hoping to find in them a
notion of freedom purged of the perplexities caused for men's minds by the
reflexivity of mental activities--the inevitable recoil on itself of the
willing ego--we hoped for more than we finally achieved. The abyss of
pure spontaneity, which in the foundation legends is bridged by the hiatus
between liberation and the constitution of freedom, was covered up by the
device, typical of the Occidental tradition (the only tradition where
freedom has always been the raison d'etre of all politics) of
understanding the new as an improved re-statement of the old. In its
original integrity, freedom survived in political theory -- i.e., theory
conceived for the purpose of political action -- only in utopian and
unfounded promises of a final "realm of freedom" that, in its Marxian
version at any raste, would indeed spell "the end of all things," a
sempiternal peace in which all specifically human activities would wither
away.
"No doubt to arrive at such a conclusion is frustrating, but I know of
only one tentative alternative to it in our entire history of political
thought. If, as Hegel believed, the philosopher's task is to catch the
most elusive of all manifestations, the spirit of an age, in the net of
reason's concepts, then Augustine, the Christian philosopher of the fifth
century A.D., was the only philosopher the Romans ever had. He was a
Roman by education rather than birth, and it was his learning that sent
him back to the classical texts of Republican Rome of the first century
B.C., which even then were alive only in the form of erudition. In his
great work on the City of god, he mentions, but does not explicate, what
could have become the ontological underpinning for a truly Roman or
Virgilian philosophy of politics. According to him, as we know, God
created man as a temporal creature, homo temporalis; time and man were
created together, and this temporality was affirmed by the fact that each
man owed his life not just to the multiplication of the species, but to
birth, the entry of a novel creature who as something entirely new appears
in the midst of the time continuum of the world. The purpose of the
creation of man was to make possible a beginning: "That there be a
beginning man was created, before whom nobody was." [City of God, book 12,
ch 20] The very capacity for beginning is rooted in natality, and by no
means in creativity, not in a gift but in the fact that human beings, new
men, again and again appear in the world by virtue of their birth."
Therefore, I think Hannah Arendt would say to us, let us not waste time
execrating Mr. Zeleny. We can best show respect for ourselves, and even
to the fundamental humanity of Mr. Zeleny, by using his expression as an
occasion to ask ourselves, What are we beginning? What is the future that
we are engaged in creating? To what are we giving birth?
Lance Fletcher
---
* Freddie 1.2.5 * The Free Lance Academy--201-626-5775
Mikhail Zeleny
>Because Hannah Arendt was one of my teachers, and her ideas have lit up my
^^^^^^^^^
>life, I was quick to select a message containing her name that appeared in
^^^^
>my incoming index with a subject listed as, "Hannah Arendt's Wrinkeled".
How touching. Are you sure you aren't thinking of Debbie Boone?
>Needless to say, the content of this message was disappointing to me, and
>my desire to see a significant discussion of Hannah Arendt on the Internet
>remains unsatisfied.
What can be more significant than pointing out that a philosopher
gives lie to her teachings by the conduct of her life?
My mother, a contemporary of your esteemed instructress, spent the war
years in the trenches. So did millions of her compatriots, none of
whom, coincidentally, ever managed to muster the gall to decry "the
banality of evil", or the complicity of the bystanders.
>Mr. Zeleny speaks of Arendt's "relucance to risk her hide..." My guess is
>that Arendt would have smiled at this and said, "Of course I was
>reluctant! What sane person would not have been? But I didn't have any
>choice. I was at risk along with everybody else. That I got out alive is
>partly due to the fact that I saw the danger when many others did not, but
>mainly it is due to the fact that I was very, very lucky."
I beg to differ. Arendt's survival was due entirely to her choice to
scurry away from the hostilities. This, in itself, is not morally
objectionable, -- unless, like Max Weber, you believe that in failing
to resist evil with force, one shares the responsibility for its
ascendancy. But to shirk away from confronting the Nazis, and then to
excoriate the cowardice of the European bourgeois in doing just the
same, and thereby failing to protect their Jewish neighbors, strikes
me as the height of hypocrisy.
>To those readers who may be upset by the outragiousness of Mr. Zeleny, let
>me say that I think Arendt herself would not have been upset by it. Of
>course, she would have found it ugly and sad that a person associated with
>one of the bastions of American intellectual aristocracy would choose to
>express himself so. But Arendt would have recognized Mr. Zeleny's manner
>as the symptom of impotent resentment, to which the appropriate response
>is not retribution in kind, but empowerment. If there were some positive
>possibility that Mr. Zeleny were engaged in producing, the chances are he
>would not waste his time being abusive to others.
I produce just fine, thank you. Moreover, I assure you that my
resentment is fully backed up with 100% pure black bile, available on
request to all recipients thereof.
>Ironically, Arendt was never particularly comfortable as an academic, even
>later in her life when she arguably did occupy a "cushy haven in the
>American academe." She never forgot, or quite forgave, the general
>passivity of German intellectuals (including most German Jewish
>intellectuals) in the face of the rise of Hitler, and it may not be too
>much to say that she came to see the Western intellectual tradition, qua
>tradition, as somehow complicit in this.
...with an unintentionally ironic exception of her passive self.
That's easy: you are beginning nothing, -- committed to experience,
but never to influence the future, you give birth to nothing but
empty, impotent, hypocritical verbiage. Just like your teacher.
>Lance Fletcher
>
>
>---
> * Freddie 1.2.5 * The Free Lance Academy--201-626-5775
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Oded Maler
English comprehensible by third-worlders.
You seem not to be fond of H. Arendt? Is it because some
or more of the following reasons:
1) She managed to escape from most of the Holocaust?
2) She was an academic bullshitter (what's the big deal,
there are millions of them, and it doesn't justify such
a heat).
3) You don't like her "theories", "explanation", "moral
judgement" or whatever concerning responsibilities for
evils, cooperation, passive cooperation, etc.?
--
==============================================================
Oded Maler, VERIMAG, Miniparc ZIRST, 38330 Montbonnot, France
Phone: 76909635 Fax: 76413620 e-mail: Oded....@imag.fr
===============================================================
Ozan S. Yigit
Once more I need a translation of M.Z.'s thesis into simple
English comprehensible by third-worlders.
you sure it is worth the effort?
oz
---
life is too short. read something else. | electric: o...@sis.yorku.ca
- Jeff Dalton. | ph:[416] 736 2100 x 33976
Mikhail Zeleny
ma...@imag.fr (Oded Maler) writes:
>Once more I need a translation of M.Z.'s thesis into simple
>English comprehensible by third-worlders.
>
>You seem not to be fond of H. Arendt? Is it because some
>or more of the following reasons:
>
>1) She managed to escape from most of the Holocaust?
>2) She was an academic bullshitter (what's the big deal,
>there are millions of them, and it doesn't justify such
>a heat).
>3) You don't like her "theories", "explanation", "moral
>judgement" or whatever concerning responsibilities for
>evils, cooperation, passive cooperation, etc.?
4) By choosing to flee, rather than fight, she forfeited
her right to complain about the cowardly bourgeois who
chose to look the other way. Twenty years later, she did
it anyway.
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>4) By choosing to flee, rather than fight, she forfeited
>her right to complain about the cowardly bourgeois who
>chose to look the other way. Twenty years later, she did
>it anyway.
*You* of all people have no right to judge her. When moral issues
like those of the Nazi era are discussed, you are always on the side
of the Nazis. The sewage you are spewing on this issue is truly
nauseating. I suggest you shut your filthy mouth.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Mikhail Zeleny
>In article <1993Aug17.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>4) By choosing to flee, rather than fight, she forfeited
>>her right to complain about the cowardly bourgeois who
>>chose to look the other way. Twenty years later, she did
>>it anyway.
>*You* of all people have no right to judge her. When moral issues
>like those of the Nazi era are discussed, you are always on the side
>of the Nazis.
On the contrary, my sterile pigeon: I regard you as a weak-willed,
misguided, pathetic soul, deserving of no punishment greater than
scathing universal ridicule.
> The sewage you are spewing on this issue is truly
>nauseating. I suggest you shut your filthy mouth.
I also find it touching that you should be so preoccupied with my
output. If you ask me nicely, I shall be happy to forward you a
generous sample of my personal waste matters for your consumption.
Naturally, you will have to pay for the postage.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
Robert Vienneau
I'm curious if I can add to the list Mike Morris is keeping. Do you have
an opinion about Rosa Luxemburg?
Robert Vienneau
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Gene W. Smith
>>*You* of all people have no right to judge her. When moral issues
>>like those of the Nazi era are discussed, you are always on the side
>>of the Nazis.
>On the contrary, my sterile pigeon: I regard you as a weak-willed,
>misguided, pathetic soul, deserving of no punishment greater than
>scathing universal ridicule.
How you regard me is irrelevant. In any case, my will has nothing to
do with the matter, and that you think otherwise merely shows you are
a fool as well as a bigot.
I was talking about the grossly immoral way you in which chose to
spread hate. People like you helped your relatives get killed in the
Holocaust, right next to the "weak-willed" people you despise. They
did this not by stuffing people into the ovens, but just by hating and
deliberately spreading their hate.
Your moral position is utterly contemptible, and you are in no
position to judge the behavior of someone who managed to survive just
the sort of hate you like to magnify.
Mikhail Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1993Aug17.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>>*You* of all people have no right to judge her. When moral issues
>>>like those of the Nazi era are discussed, you are always on the side
>>>of the Nazis.
>>On the contrary, my sterile pigeon: I regard you as a weak-willed,
>>misguided, pathetic soul, deserving of no punishment greater than
>>scathing universal ridicule.
>How you regard me is irrelevant. In any case, my will has nothing to
>do with the matter, and that you think otherwise merely shows you are
>a fool as well as a bigot.
You have repeated this accusation _ad nauseam_, but you have never
succeeded in showing it. I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of
_ressentiment_ for a comprehensive explanation of your psychological
predicament.
>I was talking about the grossly immoral way you in which chose to
>spread hate. People like you helped your relatives get killed in the
>Holocaust, right next to the "weak-willed" people you despise. They
>did this not by stuffing people into the ovens, but just by hating and
>deliberately spreading their hate.
>
>Your moral position is utterly contemptible, and you are in no
>position to judge the behavior of someone who managed to survive just
>the sort of hate you like to magnify.
It is altogether exemplary of your supercilious paranoia that you
would confuse hatred and contempt.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
J Henderson
[...]
Well, who cares what he wrote. Let us give thanks, however, that the Great
Minds of Wesleyan have not succeeded in restricting his ability to post
what he writes.
--
jeremy henderson jer...@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk
edinburgh university tel +44 (0)31 650 5886 (office)
department of geology and geophysics +44 (0)31 228 1536 (home)
edinburgh eh9 3jw uk fax +44 (0)31 668 3184
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>You have repeated this accusation _ad nauseam_, but you have never
>succeeded in showing it.
I don't have to "show" it, Butthole Face. *You* show it all the time,
you attacked Gayla just a while back right out of the blue.
>I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of _ressentiment_ for a
>comprehensive explanation of your psychological predicament.
If your weren't a pseduointellectual poseur, you *might* have been
able to figure out that Nietzsche's analysis has nothing to do with
it. Insult people for their minority group status to their face like
you do on the net and you might find their _ressentiment_ translates
itself into a knee to your balls. You might find out things about
moral philosophy in this way which you have never imagined; I am sure
it would improve your understanding of Nietzsche.
KRESSJA
>succeeded in showing it. I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of
>_ressentiment_ for a comprehensive explanation of your psychological
>predicament.
Nietzsche says: "...the essence of _ressentiment_: in order to exist, slave
morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs psychologically
speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all..."
I suggest that you reflect upon this in light of your unprovoked and abrupt]
fulmination against Arendt, especially in light of the fact that it was
YOU who first brought her up.
-JK
____________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| John Kress | "Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a |
| | rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks." |
| | -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
|________________|___________________________________________________________|
Mikhail Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1993Aug18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>You have repeated this accusation _ad nauseam_, but you have never
>>succeeded in showing it.
>I don't have to "show" it, Butthole Face. *You* show it all the time,
>you attacked Gayla just a while back right out of the blue.
I recall no such attack.
>>I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of _ressentiment_ for a
>>comprehensive explanation of your psychological predicament.
>If your weren't a pseduointellectual poseur, you *might* have been
>able to figure out that Nietzsche's analysis has nothing to do with
>it. Insult people for their minority group status to their face like
>you do on the net and you might find their _ressentiment_ translates
>itself into a knee to your balls. You might find out things about
>moral philosophy in this way which you have never imagined; I am sure
>it would improve your understanding of Nietzsche.
Ah, an *insult* is a different matter. Part of your confusion is
that you mistake the moral nature of your predicament, regarding it
as a "minority group status", rather than a deliberate choice. As
for your threats, they impress me not at all. And you are simply
mistaken in assuming that the content of my writing significantly
differs from the content of my speech.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
Mikhail Zeleny
kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
>In article <1993Aug18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>> [...] I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of
>>_ressentiment_ for a comprehensive explanation of your psychological
>>predicament.
>Nietzsche says: "...the essence of _ressentiment_: in order to exist,
>slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs
>psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all..."
How fitting to our previous topic: Nietzsche's account of how
_ressentiment_ engenders the categories of slave morality, fits
perfectly Arendt's self-exempting judgment of the perpetrators,
victims, and bystanders.
>I suggest that you reflect upon this in light of your unprovoked and
>abrupt fulmination against Arendt, especially in light of the fact
>that it was YOU who first brought her up.
This tack will get us nowhere, fast. But if you insist, I brought up
Arendt only as a journalistic source; it was your attribution of irony
to her that precipitated my "unprovoked and abrupt fulmination".
Consider that the ironic choice is to stay and face punishment, rather
than to flee and condemn it from afar:
In the age of Socrates, among men of fatigued instincts, among
the conservatives of ancient Athens who let themselves go ---
``toward happiness,'' as they said; toward pleasure, as they
acted --- and who all the while still mouthed the ancient
pompous words to which their lives no longer gave them any
right, {\it irony} may have been required for greatness of
soul, that Socratic sarcastic assurance of the old physician
and plebeian, who cut ruthlessly into his own flesh, as he did
into the flesh and heart of the ``noble,'' with a look that
said clearly enough: ``Don't dissemble in front of me! Here
--- we are equal.''
Today, conversely, when only the herd animal receives and
dispenses honors in Europe, when ``equality of rights'' could
all too easily be changed into equality in violating rights
--- I mean, into a common war on all that is rare, strange,
privileged, the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty,
the higher responsibility, and the abundance of creative power
and masterfulness --- today the concept of greatness entails
being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being able to be
different, standing alone and having to live independently.
And the philosopher will betray something of his own ideal
when he posits: ``He shall be greatest who can be loneliest,
the most concealed, the most deviant, the human being beyond
good and evil, the master of his virtues, he that is overrich
in will. Precisely this shall be called {\it greatness:}
being capable of being as manifold as whole, as ample as
full.'' And to ask it once more: today --- is greatness {\it
possible?}''
But of course that was true at the _fin_ of a different _si`ecle_. So
I gladly leave you to the ancient and pompous words you seem to mouth
so well.
>-JK
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>| | |
>| John Kress | "Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a |
>| | rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks." |
>| | -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
>|________________|___________________________________________________________|
cordially,
KRESSJA
>This tack will get us nowhere, fast. But if you insist, I brought up
How very true.
>I gladly leave you to the ancient and pompous words you seem to mouth
>so well.
I might remind you (if I thought you had the slightest understanding of
Nietzsche) that "Thoughts that come on doves feet guide the world."
The great ammount of noise that you make is of no consequence Mr. Zeleny.
Frank Casper
|>
|> You have repeated this accusation _ad nauseam_, but you have never
|> succeeded in showing it. I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of
|> _ressentiment_ for a comprehensive explanation of your psychological
|> predicament.
|>
The proverbial pot calling the kettle black...
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>I recall no such attack.
I can't help it if you are a moron.
>>>I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of _ressentiment_ for a
>>>comprehensive explanation of your psychological predicament.
>Ah, an *insult* is a different matter. Part of your confusion is
>that you mistake the moral nature of your predicament, regarding it
>as a "minority group status", rather than a deliberate choice.
It's not my fault that you are a moron.
>As for your threats, they impress me not at all.
If you weren't so totally stupid, you would realize it wasn't a threat.
I suggest you drive into a black neighborhood of Boston, and lecture
people on Nietzsche. Work in a lot of stuff about the slave
mentality, and _ressentiment_, and the Superman. Use yourself as an
example of the latter, and your audience as an example of the former.
Be sure to use lots of explicitly and insultingly racist language, and
be sure to give Nietzsche that special Nazi twist which once was so
popular.
You may then come to understand why Nietzsche's analysis of
_ressentiment_ and the slave mentality wasn't really a very good way
of understanding the situation.
srfd...@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Insult people for their minority group status to their face like
> you do on the net and you might find their _ressentiment_ translates
> itself into a knee to your balls. You might find out things about
> moral philosophy in this way which you have never imagined; I am sure
> it would improve your understanding of Nietzsche.
>
> --
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Odds now 50-1 in Hero Zeleny's Favour.
What takers?
Sara Larson
>her right to complain about the cowardly bourgeois who
>chose to look the other way. Twenty years later, she did
>it anyway.
The right to complain is a basic human right (if you
believe in such things as basic human rights). As such,
it can never be forfeited by one's actions.
Just look at the Net.
-Sara
Mikhail Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1993Aug19.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>I recall no such attack.
>I can't help it if you are a moron.
Yes you can, -- just continue your incontinent and inarticulate
blithering in public, until I get to look good in comparison.
>>>>I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of _ressentiment_ for a
>>>>comprehensive explanation of your psychological predicament.
>>Ah, an *insult* is a different matter. Part of your confusion is
>>that you mistake the moral nature of your predicament, regarding it
>>as a "minority group status", rather than a deliberate choice.
>It's not my fault that you are a moron.
Oh yes, it is, -- you can be faulted by setting such impossibly high
standards in your own person, that anyone else is _ipso facto_ doomed
to look like a moron compared to your shining inner self. Luckily for
the undeserving mankind, the radiant, true Gene Ward Smith is destined
to remain forever buried deep inside of a small-minded, vindictive,
shallow little poofter.
>>As for your threats, they impress me not at all.
>If you weren't so totally stupid, you would realize it wasn't a threat.
>
>I suggest you drive into a black neighborhood of Boston, and lecture
>people on Nietzsche. Work in a lot of stuff about the slave
>mentality, and _ressentiment_, and the Superman. Use yourself as an
>example of the latter, and your audience as an example of the former.
>Be sure to use lots of explicitly and insultingly racist language, and
>be sure to give Nietzsche that special Nazi twist which once was so
>popular.
Once again you harp on a patently false analogy, designed to elicit
undeserved compassion for your utterly contemptible behavior. The
most you can justly compare to an innate quality like race, is your
unfortunate inclination to play hide-the-salami with similarly
benighted individuals; on the other hand, your acting upon the said
inclination is entirely a matter of your personal choice. The moral
relevance of this distinction is left as an exercise for the readers.
>You may then come to understand why Nietzsche's analysis of
>_ressentiment_ and the slave mentality wasn't really a very good way
>of understanding the situation.
Funny how all slaves say the same thing!
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
Michael Feld
>I suggest you drive into a black neighborhood of Boston, and lecture
>people on Nietzsche. Work in a lot of stuff about the slave
>mentality, and _ressentiment_, and the Superman. Use yourself as an
>example of the latter, and your audience as an example of the former.
>Be sure to use lots of explicitly and insultingly racist language, and
>be sure to give Nietzsche that special Nazi twist which once was so
>popular.
>
>You may then come to understand why Nietzsche's analysis of
>_ressentiment_ and the slave mentality wasn't really a very good way
>of understanding the situation.
My, this sounds racist; did you get your inspiration from the film
version of "Rising Sun"?
--
Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba | Voice: (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
Gene W. Smith
>Once again you harp on a patently false analogy, designed to elicit
>undeserved compassion for your utterly contemptible behavior.
You moronic, pinworm-eaten piece of shit. I never asked for your
compassion, and I doubt if you have any. As for my behavior, if you
weren't a drooling imbecile you would realize you don't know what my
sexual behavior is, and hence cannot comment on it.
>The most you can justly compare to an innate quality like race, is
>your unfortunate inclination to play hide-the-salami with similarly
>benighted individuals; on the other hand, your acting upon the said
>inclination is entirely a matter of your personal choice. The moral
>relevance of this distinction is left as an exercise for the readers.
Fuck your ass with broken glass, you poisonous, pus-filled little
cretin. If you are going to babble, at least you could try to use
facts. You sound like Pat Robertson.
>Funny how all slaves say the same thing!
Funny how all the Nazis say the same thing. One minute you are acting
innocent, and the next minute you sound like Goebbels.
Eat shit and die.
Mikhail Zeleny
lar...@cfar.umd.edu (Sara Larson) writes:
I stand corrected: all she lost, was her putative right to
take the high moral ground in complaining about the cowardly
bourgeois. It is no small thing for a moral philosopher to
be found guilty of hypocrisy.
>Just look at the Net.
Quite so, -- Hannah Arendt and Serdar Argic make a lovely couple.
>-Sara
Mikhail Zeleny
fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>In article <1993Aug20.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>I suggest you drive into a black neighborhood of Boston, and lecture
>>people on Nietzsche. Work in a lot of stuff about the slave
>>mentality, and _ressentiment_, and the Superman. Use yourself as an
>>example of the latter, and your audience as an example of the former.
>>Be sure to use lots of explicitly and insultingly racist language, and
>>be sure to give Nietzsche that special Nazi twist which once was so
>>popular.
>>
>>You may then come to understand why Nietzsche's analysis of
>>_ressentiment_ and the slave mentality wasn't really a very good way
>>of understanding the situation.
>My, this sounds racist; did you get your inspiration from the film
>version of "Rising Sun"?
Sounds more like "Fritz the Cat" to this antiquated movigoer.
>--
>Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
>Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 261-0021
>University of Manitoba | Voice: (204) 474-9136
>Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
cordially,
Mikhail Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1993Aug20.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>Once again you harp on a patently false analogy, designed to elicit
>>undeserved compassion for your utterly contemptible behavior.
>You moronic, pinworm-eaten piece of shit. I never asked for your
>compassion, and I doubt if you have any. As for my behavior, if you
>weren't a drooling imbecile you would realize you don't know what my
>sexual behavior is, and hence cannot comment on it.
Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
numerous to mention. The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual
preference to race, has been part and parcel of your public sufferer's
toolkit far longer than I care to remember. In the meantime, you have
made enough revealing comments about your sexual behavior to warrant
my conclusions about its nature, and hence, my comments.
>>The most you can justly compare to an innate quality like race, is
>>your unfortunate inclination to play hide-the-salami with similarly
>>benighted individuals; on the other hand, your acting upon the said
>>inclination is entirely a matter of your personal choice. The moral
>>relevance of this distinction is left as an exercise for the readers.
>Fuck your ass with broken glass, you poisonous, pus-filled little
>cretin. If you are going to babble, at least you could try to use
>facts. You sound like Pat Robertson.
Freedom of will is a moral fact, Mr Smith; it is also the only fact I
need to invoke in order to make the above distinction. And surely a
brilliant scholar like yourself ought to realize that your impotent
exhortations unambiguously attest to your abject moral failure in this
case. Better luck next time.
>>Funny how all slaves say the same thing!
>Funny how all the Nazis say the same thing. One minute you are acting
>innocent, and the next minute you sound like Goebbels.
>
>Eat shit and die.
Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
Allen Ethridge
: [deletions]
: Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
: numerous to mention. The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual
: preference to race, has been part and parcel of your public sufferer's
: toolkit far longer than I care to remember. In the meantime, you have
So, like, what's so fallacious about it, at least in the context of
civil rights and persecution?
: [deletions]
: Freedom of will is a moral fact, Mr Smith; it is also the only fact I
: need to invoke in order to make the above distinction. And surely a
"moral fact"? Isn't that an oxymoron? And what is this "freedom of
will"? And does it relate to neurology or biochemistry?
: [deletions]
--
al...@well.sf.ca.us Words got me the wound
ethr...@bnr.ca and will get me well,
my opinions are my own if you believe it.
-- Jim Morrison
Mikhail Zeleny
ethr...@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>Mikhail Zeleny (zel...@husc8.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>[deletions]
>>Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
>>numerous to mention. The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual
>>preference to race, has been part and parcel of your public sufferer's
>>toolkit far longer than I care to remember.
>So, like, what's so fallacious about it, at least in the context of
>civil rights and persecution?
My understanding is that certain forms of discrimination cannot be
practiced on the basis of an innate (as opposed to acquired or freely
chosen) trait.
>>[deletions]
>>Freedom of will is a moral fact, Mr Smith; it is also the only fact I
>>need to invoke in order to make the above distinction. And surely a
>"moral fact"? Isn't that an oxymoron? And what is this "freedom of
>will"? And does it relate to neurology or biochemistry?
What exactly is your problem with the phrase "moral fact"? As for the
rest of your questions, you can find adequate accounts of the subject
in any philosophy reference book.
>>[deletions]
>--
>al...@well.sf.ca.us Words got me the wound
>ethr...@bnr.ca and will get me well,
>my opinions are my own if you believe it.
> -- Jim Morrison
cordially,
Gene W. Smith
>Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
>numerous to mention.
Cite one such occasion.
>The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual preference to race, has
>been part and parcel of your public sufferer's toolkit far longer than
>I care to remember.
Explain the fallacy. You might also care to explain why being a
"public sufferer", whatever that may be, is worse than being the sort
of spiteful person who hopes to make others suffer.
>In the meantime, you have made enough revealing comments about your
>sexual behavior to warrant my conclusions about its nature, and hence,
>my comments.
When and what did I say, and in what way does it "warrant" any
comments by you? Please be specific.
>Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.
He's dead.
By the way, do you think that Nieztsche's worship of the Strong Man,
such as Caesere Borgia, was evidence of strength in Nietzsche? Just
about anybody who has thought about it has drawn the opposite
conclusion, which is so obvious it is a cliche. The schoolyard bully
who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack. Your attempt to
ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
psychological problem.
It would be interesting to see if you have a human face under the mask
of the bully. Is there something real in you? Maybe if you showed on
occasion that there was something worth respecting in you, you could
get some of the respect which you feel you is lacking.
Meanwhile, it is well to remember that you will not be able to prove
you are strong by showing someone else is weak. You will not be able
to prove that you are worthy by showing you are strong, nor by showing
that someone else is less worthy. It can't work in reality, and it
doesn't even fool everyone whom you hope to fool by it--least of
all yourself.
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>So, like, what's so fallacious about it, at least in the context of
>>civil rights and persecution?
>My understanding is that certain forms of discrimination cannot be
>practiced on the basis of an innate (as opposed to acquired or freely
>chosen) trait.
Since homosexuality is an innate trait, by your own "understanding" it
should not form the basis of discrimination. You are not living by
your own professed moral standards. I would worry about that before
wondering if escaping the Nazis like Hanna Arendt, or simply being a
homosexual, is supposedly immoral.
Gene W. Smith
>My, this sounds racist; did you get your inspiration from the film
>version of "Rising Sun"?
Why is it racist to think that Nietzsche's analysis of "slave mentality"
does not apply very well to the resentment felt by inner-city black
people.
Please be specific.
hami...@matai.vuw.ac.nz
>G. Smith
>Eat shit and die.
>M Zeleny
>Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.
>G. Smith
>He's dead.
Ah Mr Smith you missed the joke:
Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucalt: All sorts of yukky stuff
about warm shit implied.
when you see him: And die... probably to meet in hell.
Michael Feld
"Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?"
Here is what you have just said: that Americans of African extraction
are savages so incapable of rational discussion, that were Zeleny to
enter one of their slums and set about to explain Nietzsche, why,
they'd slice him up with their cutlasses. For the video version of
your scree, just wait until "Rising Sun" makes it to Heidelberg.
Here is what Zeleny is saying: no one choses a racial extraction; one
does or does not chose to indulge one's sexual inclinations; it is
morally worse to harm someone for a non-chosen trait than for a freely
chosen sexual act. So far, he's got it right; what you really want to
say to him, get him to acknowledge, or at least to claim to him and to
your allies, is that Zeleny is wrong in the way he morally categorizes
the sexual behaviour he deprecates. (Hint: would it have been ok for
the Nazis to kill all but only those Jews who freely chose to practice
Judaism?) And you want to proceed in a way that doesn't draw you into a moral
slough.
And yes, of course, Mr. Zeleny knows that Foucault
is dead -- he thinks that Foucault, that noted homosexual, must be in
Hell, and invites you to join Foucault there. He's just being giddy.
Mikhail Zeleny
hami...@matai.vuw.ac.nz writes:
As they say, heaven is to be preferred for climate, hell for company.
Would you rather spend eternity with the noted holy man Pat Robertson,
or with the infamous homosexual Michel Foucault? From where I sit,
the answer depends on the setting: symposium or sauna?
Gene W. Smith
(Michael Feld) writes:
>Here is what you have just said: that Americans of African extraction
>are savages so incapable of rational discussion, that were Zeleny to
>enter one of their slums and set about to explain Nietzsche, why,
>they'd slice him up with their cutlasses. For the video version of
>your scree, just wait until "Rising Sun" makes it to Heidelberg.
Don't lecture me about this. If you are so convinced that I am wrong,
I suggest you try the experiment. Go into the ghetto and insult
people by suggesting that they are inferior, "slave mentality"
people, and that their respentment of their treatment merely shows
that they are aware that they really are inferior to the white people.
Then report back.
Incidentally, I didn't say anyone would get sliced up with cutlasses.
It is interesting to see you reading this into what I said, and pretty
much shows that there is something a little disingenuous about what
you have been saying.
>Here is what Zeleny is saying: no one choses a racial extraction; one
>does or does not chose to indulge one's sexual inclinations; it is
>morally worse to harm someone for a non-chosen trait than for a freely
>chosen sexual act.
It isn't what he is saying. He is morally blaming me for what I am,
not for any act of mine. Please explain why that is morally
acceptable, or distinguishable in any way from racism
>So far, he's got it right; what you really want to say to him, get him
>to acknowledge, or at least to claim to him and to your allies, is
>that Zeleny is wrong in the way he morally categorizes the sexual
>behaviour he deprecates.
I might want that eventually. I would like to start with the question
of why he thinks it is acceptable to denigrate people *because* they
are homosexual.
>(Hint: would it have been ok for the Nazis to kill all but only those
>Jews who freely chose to practice Judaism?) And you want to proceed in
>a way that doesn't draw you into a moral slough.
The Nazis were convinced the Jews were a race, so they did not think
in these terms. Zeleny is proceeding in the same way, and it doesn't
work according to his own professed ethical theory, let alone mine or
anyone else's.
>And yes, of course, Mr. Zeleny knows that Foucault
>is dead -- he thinks that Foucault, that noted homosexual, must be in
>Hell, and invites you to join Foucault there. He's just being giddy.
I'm not completely stupid, though you seem to be convinced of this.
Mikhail Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1993Aug20.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
>>numerous to mention.
>Cite one such occasion.
Lacking access to comprehensive archives, I can only cite with
certainty several occasions of your numerous exchanges with Mike
Morris on the above subject. In particular, you may recall the
one that took place in March of 1992, just before you branded me
"an intelligent homophobe". The topic had to do with the
putative causes of the higher rates in teenager suicide among
homosexuals.
>>The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual preference to race, has
>>been part and parcel of your public sufferer's toolkit far longer than
>>I care to remember.
>Explain the fallacy. You might also care to explain why being a
>"public sufferer", whatever that may be, is worse than being the sort
>of spiteful person who hopes to make others suffer.
Even assuming that the inclination to a particular kind of sexual
behavior may very well be innate, and supposing further that we
are endowed with the capacity to freely choose whether or not to
act on that (or any other) inclination, it follows that any
actual sexual preference, regarded as a manifest inclination, is
entirely determined by the agent, be it in harmonious accord
with, or in direct contravention of, his innate inclination to
prefer a certain form of erotic gratification. (You may recall
that we have been over this ground on an earlier occasion.) On
the subject of public suffering, see below.
>>In the meantime, you have made enough revealing comments about your
>>sexual behavior to warrant my conclusions about its nature, and hence,
>>my comments.
>When and what did I say, and in what way does it "warrant" any
>comments by you? Please be specific.
As I recall, we have covered this ground back in April of 1992.
You mentioned, while responding to my assertion that homosexual
behavior was freely chosen, that you have tried changing your
sexual preference, without any success. Similarly, I can derive
the same conclusions from your oft-repeated, yet utterly mistaken,
assertion that I am morally blaming you for what you are. In any
event, I grant you that it is entirely possible that I was mistaken
in my conclusions. As before, I am willing to stand corrected, or
to exclude personal considerations from this discussion, provided
that you abstain from introducing them yourself.
>>Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.
>He's dead.
Not in ways that would matter to my point. Recall your erstwhile
assertion that "Homosexual behavior is *prima faciae* good for
homosexual people." Michel Foucault, with his quest for "limit
experiences", would appear to constitute a counterexample to your
claim.
>By the way, do you think that Nieztsche's worship of the Strong Man,
>such as Caesere Borgia, was evidence of strength in Nietzsche? Just
>about anybody who has thought about it has drawn the opposite
>conclusion, which is so obvious it is a cliche. The schoolyard bully
>who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
>but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack. Your attempt to
>ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
>the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
>psychological problem.
How lucky for both of us then, that we are sufficiently endowed
with intelligence and critical faculties, so as not to be taken
by the superficial attractions of armchair psychoanalysis. Were
we any less fortunate, we might have derived an uncharitable and
fallacious impression of your own character, from the evidence
afforded by your unprovoked aggression against Mike Morris and
myself in the past two weeks.
As regards Nietzsche's position, I see it as a laudable attempt
to reverse the execrable tendency of Western moral and political
philosophy to derive its sense of legitimacy from a claim of
unfair victimization. Hence his professed admiration for the
condottieri. In any event, you would do well to remember that
his final collapse was precipitated by an attempt to save a
dray-horse from a beating by its master.
>It would be interesting to see if you have a human face under the mask
>of the bully. Is there something real in you? Maybe if you showed on
>occasion that there was something worth respecting in you, you could
>get some of the respect which you feel you is lacking.
My position is not designed to elicit respect. I feel that it is
my human right and moral responsibility to speak up in defense of
my views. Moreover, I feel obligated to contradict claims that I
find fallacious and offensive to reason. Although I see no need
to shirk from returning an insult or contradicting an absurdity,
I make no pretension to absolute truth, and would readily retract
any statement, should it ever be refuted by an opponent. I do
not particularly enjoy inflicting suffering; however I consider
it necessary to do so as a homoeopathic measure aimed against the
prevalent trend to base otherwise groundless claims of moral and
political entitlement on the degree of suffering experienced by
the claimant.
Does this make me a bully? Well, being painfully self-employed,
I do not qualify as a hired ruffian; on the other hand, I must
plead guilty to being a blustering browbeating fellow; my sole
excuse for being habitually cruel to others weaker than myself,
is that I fancy that such treatment would have the effect of
making them stronger. As for being a pimp, or a protector of a
prostitute, -- why not? If it was good enough for Socrates, it
certainly is good enough for me.
>Meanwhile, it is well to remember that you will not be able to prove
>you are strong by showing someone else is weak. You will not be able
>to prove that you are worthy by showing you are strong, nor by showing
>that someone else is less worthy. It can't work in reality, and it
>doesn't even fool everyone whom you hope to fool by it--least of
>all yourself.
See above.
In article <1993Aug22....@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1993Aug20.2...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>>So, like, what's so fallacious about it, at least in the context of
>>>civil rights and persecution?
>>My understanding is that certain forms of discrimination cannot be
>>practiced on the basis of an innate (as opposed to acquired or freely
>>chosen) trait.
>Since homosexuality is an innate trait, by your own "understanding" it
>should not form the basis of discrimination. You are not living by
>your own professed moral standards. I would worry about that before
>wondering if escaping the Nazis like Hanna Arendt, or simply being a
>homosexual, is supposedly immoral.
If homosexuality is an innate trait, it may not be taken as the
basis of certain forms of discrimination. But this says nothing
whatsoever about homosexual behavior, which nevertheless should
be protected in most instances on the basis of a different
principle -- the right to privacy.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially, | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
mikhail | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
zel...@husc.harvard.edu | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
Michael Feld
In article <1993Aug23.0...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
[juggled passages]
>I'm not completely stupid, though you seem to be convinced of this.
>Don't lecture me about this.
Fair enough; it bothered me that Mr. Zeleny was scoring such easy
points against you, so I fell into the trap of "let me show you how
that part works"; but, as you say, you're a big boy now, and I'll
leave you free to fight with the other lads on their own terms.
>If you are so convinced that I am wrong,
>I suggest you try the experiment. Go into the ghetto and insult
>people by suggesting that they are inferior, "slave mentality"
>people, and that their respentment of their treatment merely shows
>that they are aware that they really are inferior to the white people.
>Then report back.
>
See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners and
denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
stronger than that?
> [Lots omitted]
>I would like to start with the question
>of why he [Zeleny] thinks it is acceptable to denigrate people *because* they
>are homosexual.
Now we're cooking, campers! (Mind, I'd lose that "denigrate", if you
don't mind -- unless YOU'd feel comfortable going into an inner city
and explaining why you use "blacken" as a pejorative.) Make Mr.
Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral. Stop giving him so
easy a ride.
Best,
Michael
adolphson
fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
> See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
> challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners
> and denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
> slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
> stronger than that?
Are you really this dense? Zeleny stands on his soapbox
and, with his curious understanding of Kant, Nietzsche,
psychology, and human biology, denounces homosexuals for
being homosexual. After all, a homosexual orientation --
just the orientation, not the sexual activity -- is
*entirely* a matter of choice, as Zeleny wrote again
earlier today. Right? (Note to Zeleny: can you let us
know when it was that you chose to be heterosexual? Just
the date is fine; you don't have to give me the time, too.)
Gene Ward Smith:
> >I would like to start with the question
> >of why he [Zeleny] thinks it is acceptable to denigrate people *because*
> >they are homosexual.
> Now we're cooking, campers! (Mind, I'd lose that "denigrate", if you
> don't mind -- unless YOU'd feel comfortable going into an inner city
> and explaining why you use "blacken" as a pejorative.)
Do you even know what the word 'denigrate' means?
> Make Mr.
> Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral. Stop giving him
> so easy a ride.
Oh, now I see what your problem is. You're new around here.
--
Arne Adolphson "I've cast my pearls before swine, you know,
adol...@mizar.usc.edu but not _all_ of them."
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Libby Holman
Michael Feld
>In article <CC818...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>
>> See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
>> challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners
>> and denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
>> slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
>> stronger than that?
>
No, no, you quite misunderstand my purpose; I'm exactly guilty of the
sin of lecturing the Smiths of this world on how to respond to the
Zelenys; my purpose is pedagogic, not substantive; I'm a fucking old
bore of a prof, with no special interest in defending Mr. Zeleny
(lord, the mere notion!) or his sexual views, but with a great desire
to see such issues taken out of the rhetorical flames and placed into the frying
pan of logic.
So, yep, I went and looked it up, and sure enough, "denigrate" means
"blacken", and, hence, by derivation, "to defame". Sort of up there
with "jew him down", eh?
As to the substance: I've missed Mr. Z's defence of his homophobia,
have I? Being as I've not had the delight of playing this sport
before last Xmas-time? My apologies. Please forgive and be generous.
Tell me, what were Z's arguments, and how did his antagonists meet
them?
Philip Nikolayev
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
> Even assuming that the inclination to a particular kind of sexual
> behavior may very well be innate, and supposing further that we are
> endowed with the capacity to freely choose whether or not to act on
> that (or any other) inclination, it follows that any actual sexual
> preference, regarded as a manifest inclination, is entirely
> determined by the agent, be it in harmonious accord with, or in
> direct contravention of, his innate inclination to prefer a certain
> form of erotic gratification.
This is true, of course, as it stands; but it only ties in well with
your condemnation of homosexual behaviour if that behaviour can be
proven wrong on an independent ground. As far as I know, your
objection to homosexual behaviour is of a teleological nature. Thou
shalt not abuse thy genetic setup, reproduction being a moral need.
This, too, may be fair enough, but, I think, only to the extent that
homo- or heterosexual attractions also are precisely a matter of
choice. (I do, indeed, believe them to be a matter of choice in some
possibly very large measure, although it seems to me that it's the
kind of choice that most people don't consciously make.) However, *if*
a man's homosexual preference is genetically programmed (or,
hypothetically, *if* it is programmed to the complete exclusion of a
homosexual man's ability to function successfully in any heterosexual
act unless he resorts to homosexual fantasies, for example), it is not
at all clear to me that his homosexual behaviour constitutes some sort
of 'abuse' of his genetic makeup. Is it clear to you, Mikhail?
Besides, is reproduction really an *absolute* moral need? Artificial
insemination aside, isn't everyone's ability to reproduce limited
among other things by the number of willing partners of the opposite
sex?
Here's a thought experiment: imagine a group of male homosexuals
banished by some primitive tribe to a lonely God-forsaken island for
life. Tropical nature supples all everyday necessities - but no human
females. All the men believe that they are attracted to members of
their own sex by their very nature. Would it still be immoral for any
one of them to have sex with a consenting partner, and if not, why
exactly not?
Philip Nikolayev
nik...@husc.harvard.edu
Mikhail Zeleny
>In article <CC818...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>>See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
>>challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners
>>and denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
>>slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
>>stronger than that?
>Are you really this dense? Zeleny stands on his soapbox
>and, with his curious understanding of Kant, Nietzsche,
>psychology, and human biology, denounces homosexuals for
>being homosexual. After all, a homosexual orientation --
>just the orientation, not the sexual activity -- is
>*entirely* a matter of choice, as Zeleny wrote again
>earlier today.
I wrote no such thing.
> Right? (Note to Zeleny: can you let us
>know when it was that you chose to be heterosexual? Just
>the date is fine; you don't have to give me the time, too.)
Shortly before puberty, but it is an ongoing process.
>Gene Ward Smith:
>>>I would like to start with the question
>>>of why he [Zeleny] thinks it is acceptable to denigrate people *because*
>>>they are homosexual.
>>Now we're cooking, campers! (Mind, I'd lose that "denigrate", if you
>>don't mind -- unless YOU'd feel comfortable going into an inner city
>>and explaining why you use "blacken" as a pejorative.)
>Do you even know what the word 'denigrate' means?
It certainly sounds like he does:
den.i.grate \'den-i-.gra-t\ \.den-i-'gra--sh*n\ \'den-i-.gra-t-*r\
\-gr*-.to-r-e-, -.to.r-\ vt [L denigratus, pp. of denigrare, fr. de- +
nigrare to b]lacken, fr. nigr-, niger black : to cast aspersions on :
DEFAME - den.i.gra.tion n
>>Make Mr.
>>Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral. Stop giving him
>>so easy a ride.
>Oh, now I see what your problem is. You're new around here.
But you, on the other hand, have been through this before. So what's
your excuse for ignorance?
>--
>Arne Adolphson "I've cast my pearls before swine, you know,
>adol...@mizar.usc.edu but not _all_ of them."
>ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Libby Holman
cordially,
Mikhail Zeleny
nik...@husc11.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
Hint: ask an analogous question about kleptomania. Note that you are
confusing the explanans with the explanandum: the moral purpose of
eroticism is due to the genetic makeup of uts participants, but not
identical with it. Ultimately, all purposes belong to moral agents,
and hence the only relevant sort of abuse, is the abuse of an agent.
>Besides, is reproduction really an *absolute* moral need? Artificial
>insemination aside, isn't everyone's ability to reproduce limited
>among other things by the number of willing partners of the opposite
>sex?
The possibility of reproduction is relative to circumstances. Thus it
is not a moral need that such a possibility be present whilst you are
cramming for a final in a Widener library stall. Or perhaps I should
note that it would depend on the object of your cramming.
>Here's a thought experiment: imagine a group of male homosexuals
>banished by some primitive tribe to a lonely God-forsaken island for
>life. Tropical nature supples all everyday necessities - but no human
>females. All the men believe that they are attracted to members of
>their own sex by their very nature. Would it still be immoral for any
>one of them to have sex with a consenting partner, and if not, why
>exactly not?
Consensuality is a red herring here, and so is the lack of females.
The former is irrelevant because it is impossible to dispense with the
moral objections against the abuse of oneself or others by dint of any
form of agreement; the latter is irrelevant because moral principles
are not abrogated by opportunity, or lack thereof.
>Philip Nikolayev
>nik...@husc.harvard.edu
Charles Bishop
>In article <25b4u9$2...@mizar.usc.edu> adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>>In article <CC818...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>>
>>> See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
>>> challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners
>>> and denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
>>> slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
>>> stronger than that?
>>
>>Are you really this dense? Zeleny ...[lots omitted]
>
>No, no, you quite misunderstand my purpose; I'm exactly guilty of the
>sin of lecturing the Smiths of this world on how to respond to the
>Zelenys; my purpose is pedagogic, not substantive; I'm a fucking old
>bore of a prof, with no special interest in defending Mr. Zeleny
>(lord, the mere notion!) or his sexual views, but with a great desire
>to see such issues taken out of the rhetorical flames and placed into the frying
>pan of logic.
>
>So, yep, I went and looked it up, and sure enough, "denigrate" means
>"blacken", and, hence, by derivation, "to defame". Sort of up there
>with "jew him down", eh?
But is it equivalent to 'jew him down'? I thought that black, as a color
was negative in and of itself, without reference to race.
stuff about previous posts deleted.
Rob Jellinghaus
In other words, it would still be immoral. Could you explain once
again what "moral objections against the abuse of oneself or others"
you have to homosexual behavior, and on what moral principles those
objections are grounded? I do hope you choose to answer the question,
rather than state that you have covered the topic repeatedly before.
(Certainly I've seen no clear summary of your argument in talk.
philosophy.misc or elsewhere.)
--
Rob Jellinghaus ro...@netcom.com uunet!netcom!robj
adolphson
> So, yep, I went and looked it up, and sure enough, "denigrate" means
> "blacken", and, hence, by derivation, "to defame". Sort of up there
> with "jew him down", eh?
No. Please demonstrate that the ancient Romans
had black Africans in mind when they coined and
used the verb 'denigrare'. Please demonstrate
that speakers of the English language have
black Africans and their descendants in mind
when they use the verb 'denigrate'.
> As to the substance: I've missed Mr. Z's defence of his homophobia,
> have I? Being as I've not had the delight of playing this sport
> before last Xmas-time? My apologies. Please forgive and be generous.
> Tell me, what were Z's arguments, and how did his antagonists meet
> them?
The substance of Zeleny's arguments is entirely
irrelevant to me. I really don't give a flying
fuck about his moral philosophy or the works Hilary
Putnam has had him read. Why don't you ask him
to lay it all out for you?
--
Arne Adolphson "No adult woman should ever look as if
adol...@mizar.usc.edu she dressed in a dark closet."
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford
Mikhail Zeleny
adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>In article <CC8An...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>>So, yep, I went and looked it up, and sure enough, "denigrate" means
>>"blacken", and, hence, by derivation, "to defame". Sort of up there
>>with "jew him down", eh?
>No. Please demonstrate that the ancient Romans
>had black Africans in mind when they coined and
>used the verb 'denigrare'. Please demonstrate
>that speakers of the English language have
>black Africans and their descendants in mind
>when they use the verb 'denigrate'.
Please demonstrate that the contemporary Americans have the tribe
of Abraham in mind when they mindlessly use the phrase 'to jew
down'. (Hint: see the _LA Times_ reports from Sacramento for the
month of June.) Also please explain why the presumable stupidity
of certain speakers of the English language may be used as a
meaningful clue for interpreting their oblivious use thereof.
>>As to the substance: I've missed Mr. Z's defence of his homophobia,
>>have I? Being as I've not had the delight of playing this sport
>>before last Xmas-time? My apologies. Please forgive and be generous.
>>Tell me, what were Z's arguments, and how did his antagonists meet
>>them?
>The substance of Zeleny's arguments is entirely
>irrelevant to me. I really don't give a flying
>fuck about his moral philosophy or the works Hilary
>Putnam has had him read. Why don't you ask him
>to lay it all out for you?
It is hardly surprising that you would have a difficulty in
distinguishing things that one does from things that are done to
him. Why don't you attempt to confine your petty rants to topics
that do not go so far beyond the meager range of your discernment?
>--
>Arne Adolphson "No adult woman should ever look as if
>adol...@mizar.usc.edu she dressed in a dark closet."
>ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford
cordially, | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
John Donald Collier
> Make Mr.
> Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral.
He has tried. At great length. Redundantly and repetitively. And he
has failed miserably to come up with a sound argument.
His far-fetched reasoning has included howlers about the function of
sex, the autonomy of the individual, and the significance of death.
It's good for a laugh, if you don't find it too offensive, but it soon
wears a bit thin, much like any other religious dogma, if you are not
a true believer. Arguing with him in public is more or less pointless,
because he shifts topics faster than issues can be addressed fully.
This simple rhetorical trick works, unfortunately, fairly well on the
internet, where people get only snapshots of the debate. Creationists
use much the same trick, perhaps with greater sophistication, but then,
they have to operate in public fora, in a sustained way, for a couple
of hours at a time, with a live audience.
--
John Collier Email: jcol...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne Fax: +61 3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052
Andrew Dinn
homosexuality which have *nothing to do with books*.
Please foax, would you all remove rec.arts.books from your
follow-ups. I would like to continue the Zeleny-free grace period we
have enjoyed since he last retired in a huff.
Andrew Dinn
------------------------------------------------------------
La culte de Zeleny est monotone, comme les eclats de l'homme
John Donald Collier
>But is it equivalent to 'jew him down'? I thought that black, as a color
>was negative in and of itself, without reference to race.
To get technical, neither does 'jew him down' implicate race. Jews
don't constitute a race. They form an ethnic group. This is a small
point, but a significant one in this context, since being a member
of an ethnic group can be a matter of choice.
As can, I should point out, being a member of a particular
religious group.
Gene W. Smith
>No, no, you quite misunderstand my purpose; I'm exactly guilty of the
>sin of lecturing the Smiths of this world on how to respond to the
>Zelenys...
This is stupid. If you want to respond to Zeleny then do so, but
don't give me any silly lectures on the topic.
>Tell me, what were Z's arguments, and how did his antagonists meet
>them?
They were warmed-over medieval philosophy. He tried to make an
argument from natural law work without bringing God into the
picture. Since our understanding of the world has advanced quite
a bit from the days of Thomas Aquinas, this was difficult.
Since he was using the language of possibility and necessity, I
introduced the possible worlds semantics. The end result was that a
sexual act by a person of one genotype was OK if in some possible
world, a person of the opposite genotype was involved in a way which
in a possibly possible world, that possible person together with the
first person were engaging in procreative sex.
Zeleny introduced peculiar complications by equating genotype with
gender, so that people of opposite phenotype but the same genotype
were actually engaged in immoral, homosexual sex; whereas persons of
the same phenotype, but opposite genotype, were doing morally
blameless heterosexual sex, even if everyone *thought* they were
homosexuals.
Take it from there.
Gene W. Smith
>>I suggest you try the experiment. Go into the ghetto and insult
>>people by suggesting that they are inferior, "slave mentality"
>>people, and that their respentment of their treatment merely shows
>>that they are aware that they really are inferior to the white people.
>>Then report back.
>See? This is how we began; you are being racist.
Looks to me like *you* are the one being racist, Bub. You and
Zeleny together have a Bad Cop, Bad Cop routine going. If the
people in the ghetto don't respond with anger, they are weak.
If they do, they are demonstrating their slave mentality. If they
become violent, they are barbarians. The way you two clowns have
it worked out, they can't win.
It is just this heads I win, tails you lose box Zeleny wants
homosexuals to be in.
>'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is stronger
>than that?
You can say that again. You sound like you are full of the typical
smug arrogance of the haves. I am sure Zeleny will be happy to
explain why that makes you morally superior. Meanwhile, the people in
the ghetto are just as human and just as worthy as you guys, and if
you want to say that the anger they may feel just shows how inferior
they are, then the hell with you.
If Nietzsche could have gotten his smarmy ass kicked by a real-life
slave after giving a smug, superior lecture about slave mentality, it
would have done him and his philosophy a world of good; and that was
*my* point.
Doug Quarnstrom
: By the way, do you think that Nieztsche's worship of the Strong Man,
: such as Caesere Borgia, was evidence of strength in Nietzsche?
Did N. really worship Borgia?
Here is a section quoted from Kaufman's 'Nietzsche, Philosopher, Psychologist,
Antichrist:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Nietzsche's ideas that have generally been minconstrued
are comprehensible if only this contrast of sublimation and
emasculation is taken into account. It is, for example, a common
misconception that Nietzsche admired Cesare Borgia and glorified him.
Nietzsche found it ridiculous to consider a Cesare Borgia unhealthy
in contrast to an emasculated man who is alleged to be healthy (J197).
When Nietzsche was criticized on that account, he clarified his point
in another book, three years later (G ix 37). He now explained that he
did not favor "the abolition of all decent feelings" but that he was
not sure "whether we have really become more moral." Perhaps we
have just become emasculated, and our failure to do evil is to be
ascribed merely to our inability to do evil. Perhaps we are
just weak. To be moral is to overcome one's impulses; if one
does not have any impulses, one is not therefore moral. In other
words, Cesare Borgia is not a hero, but --Nietzsche insists-- we are
no heros either if our own impulses are merely too weak to tempt us.
A few months later, in his last work, Nietzsche insisted once more
that his point was merely that there was more hope for the man of
strong impulses than for the man with no impulses: one should look
"even for a Cesare Borgia rather than a Parsifal." (EH iii 1).
Translators and interpreters have not always minded the eher noch:
"EVEN for a Borgia rather than a Parsival." This eher noch leaves
no doubt that Nietzsche considered Cesare Borgia far from admirable
but preferred even him to the Parsifal ideal....
G= The Twilight of the Idols
J= Beyond Good and Evil
EH = Ecce Homo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
end of quote.
It is not clear to me that N. did worship Borgia. He did worship
strenght, but my reading leads me to agree with Kaufmans analysis
that the strength N. admires is the strength of sublimation, of
overcoming ones passions and integrating them into the process of
creating beauty. The best strength is self-mastery.
: Just
: about anybody who has thought about it has drawn the opposite
: conclusion, which is so obvious it is a cliche.
I do not think that everyone who has considered it even agrees
with your premises, much less your conclusions.
: The schoolyard bully
: who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
: but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack.
I do not at all get the impression that N. was a bully.
: Your attempt to
: ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
: the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
: psychological problem.
Your understanding of Nietzsche and his philosophy seems to be
differetn from my own (admittedly limited) knowledge.
: Meanwhile, it is well to remember that you will not be able to prove
: you are strong by showing someone else is weak.
I do not have the quote available, but Nietzsche considered it a
duty to be decent towards those weaker than onesself. It may
be arrogant to think of people as weaker than onesself, but
if a duty to be decent to them is the result, is it really a problem?
doug
Michael Feld
>The substance of Zeleny's arguments is entirely
>irrelevant to me. I really don't give a flying
>fuck about his moral philosophy or the works Hilary
>Putnam has had him read. Why don't you ask him
>to lay it all out for you?
>
>--
>Arne Adolphson "No adult woman should ever look as if
>adol...@mizar.usc.edu she dressed in a dark closet."
>ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford
See, its like this: if Mr. Zeleny gets it all wrong about
homosexuality, then, shucks, he is naught but a bully, and all his
chat about free choice is irrelevant; and if he has it right, then we
are back to netiquette. But if your game is merely abuse, my
apologies, I came here for an argument, stupid git that I am.
As to your understanding of meaning and derivation, I look forward to
your defence of "jew him down", "effeminate", and "gringo".
Michael Feld
>You can say that again. You sound like you are full of the typical
>smug arrogance of the haves. I am sure Zeleny will be happy to
>explain why that makes you morally superior. Meanwhile, the people in
>the ghetto are just as human and just as worthy as you guys, and if
>you want to say that the anger they may feel just shows how inferior
>they are, then the hell with you.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Um -- you sure you don't want to hold off this flame until you
discover my race or colour or sexual preference or views on
homosexuality?
No, I suppose not. Okay, you win, and I'll take my doll and dishes
home with me.
Joy to the merrry-go-round-ers.
Robert C.Haushalter
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>
[deletia]
Not being a philospher, I am amazed and impressed at how rapidly and
smoothly you folks made the transition from Nietzche to Zeleny's
butthole.
I Kant believe it.
--
The opinions are mine..not my company's.
Actually, everything is more complicated
Beware of any endeavor requiring new clothes -H.D. Thoreau
And, as digestive a good, not smelling portion of open legs. -Michele
Laura Potler
>...
>him. Why don't you attempt to confine your petty rants to topics
>that do not go so far beyond the meager range of your discernment?
why don't *you* stop crossposting this stuff to alt.peeves, as requested?!
peeve: some people couldn't catch a clue if it was that creature from
_alien_ that attached itself to their face.
--
-lp **************************************************************************
* i've been on a search to find people of truth/but that's not as plain *
* or as clear as it sounds/we're taught to take things that are put before *
*** us/and find ways to twist them around... --jimmy landry *****************
KRESSJA
>If Nietzsche could have gotten his smarmy ass kicked by a real-life
>slave after giving a smug, superior lecture about slave mentality, it
>would have done him and his philosophy a world of good; and that was
>*my* point.
You shouldn't weaken your position with remarks like this. I mean, you don't
think that Zeleny UNDERSTANDS Nietzsche, do you?
Nietzsche's investigates the origins of values, and differentiates two types
of origination; he immediately adds that *individuals* usually display
characteristics of both; Nietzsche NEVER takes psychology to be a matter
simple catagorical classification.
And as for "smug, smarmy, and superior," Nietzsche says:
"Let us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: 'Man *ought* to
be such and such!' Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the
abundance of a lavish play and change of forms--and some wretched loafer of
a moralist comments: 'No! Man ought to be different." He even knows what man
should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints himself on the wall
and comments, 'Ecce Homo!'" (TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS)
Sound like anyone we know?
-JK
____________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| John Kress | "Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a |
| | rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks." |
| | -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
|________________|___________________________________________________________|
Mikhail Zeleny
pot...@umbc.edu (Laura Potler) writes:
>In article <1993Aug24.0...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>...
>>him. Why don't you attempt to confine your petty rants to topics
>>that do not go so far beyond the meager range of your discernment?
>why don't *you* stop crossposting this stuff to alt.peeves, as requested?!
Because other voices from that venue have expressed an opposing
request with greater eloquence and persuasion. To translate this
in monosyllabic idiom adequate to your culture and comprehension:
You lose.
Piss off.
>peeve: some people couldn't catch a clue if it was that creature from
> _alien_ that attached itself to their face.
Here's hoping that you can do better than those unfortunates.
>--
>-lp **************************************************************************
>* i've been on a search to find people of truth/but that's not as plain *
>* or as clear as it sounds/we're taught to take things that are put before *
>*** us/and find ways to twist them around... --jimmy landry *****************
cordially,
Laura Potler
>In article <25dnj2...@umbc4.umbc.edu>
>pot...@umbc.edu (Laura Potler) writes:
>>why don't *you* stop crossposting this stuff to alt.peeves, as requested?!
>
>Because other voices from that venue have expressed an opposing
>request with greater eloquence and persuasion. To translate this
who is encouraging this idiot??
names! i want names!!
-l "heads will roll!" p
Bruce Garrett
>>Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
>>numerous to mention.
>Cite one such occasion.
MZ> Lacking access to comprehensive archives, I can only cite with
MZ> certainty...
Hey Gene...Michael...this is the
You Need An Available Cunt In The Vicinity
Of A Sex Act To Make A Sex Act Moral Because
Only Where Conception Might Occur In Some
Possible World Of Some Possible Universe Can
Sex Be Moral
guy...right...? I think it is. Does he come here every year about this
time...?
MZ> In particular, you may recall the one that took place in March of 1992,
MZ> just before you branded me "an intelligent homophobe".
I'd sure call that nonsense...
Notice how he cites a location to information...but not one shred
of actual information. Isn't it interesting how you come away with the
vague feeling that he knows what he's talking about even though he hasn't
related one tangible fact save a reference? We are told that there is the
whine for special protection somewhere in that conversation...but what was
it's content? What made it a whine and not a reasonable argument? What
made it a whine for "Special" protection and not simple justice?
This one almost always passes by reference...not value. Don't
trust his pointers though. As I recall, last time around in lieu of
argument he just kept referring to one of his pets, Godel I believe his
name was, but regardless of who it actually was it was in the same vein as
all his other arguments by citation(Oh...if you'd ever read such-and-such
you'd know that what you're saying is all botched up...go read
such-and-such...) and when he actually let slip something of what he
thought the philosopher in question meant he got a furious response from
several others here who regrettably for him, Had read the man.
The Argument By Citation is a nifty trick for sounding like you're
being specific in your responses while at the same time saying next to
nothing yourself and Zeleny is one of the better ones I've seen at it. He
does it so smoothly you hardly notice after you've pressed <N>ext that he
didn't actually explain anything at all. Last year we got tons of this
version of the Argument from authority from Zeleny. I reckon he's back
with another bargeload...
>>Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.
>He's dead.
MZ> Not in ways that would matter to my point.
And grief is such a deliciously enticing target. Easy to hit.
Deeply satisfying. And you can do it Knowing that when you say afterward
"Oh...I really didn't mean it like That...I'm so terribly sorry if you
took it that way..." that the pain will linger...
MZ> Recall your erstwhile assertion that "Homosexual behavior is *prima
MZ> faciae* good for homosexual people." Michel Foucault, with his quest for
MZ> "limit experiences", would appear to constitute a counterexample to your
MZ> claim.
Now the phrase "limitless experiences" (I reckon he meant
"limitless experiences" instead of what he actually wrote which was "limit
experiences" but this is only because the phrase "limit experiences" makes
utterly no sense as he used it in the above argument. I freely admit
that's a pretty slender thread to hang a judgment as to what he really
meant on...) is as slippery as a car salesman's "unlimited milage
warranty". But never mind. It's sludge like this that's enough to put to
bed any claim that he's an intelligent homophobe. That homosexual behavior
is good for homosexuals is not to say or even to argue that a quest for
"Limitless Experiences", (never mind whether or not this quest in the sense
that he means it was Michel Foucault's) is a good thing for homosexuals or
for that matter anyone.
State one position, then argue a different one as though it was the
first one: not exactly bright, not exactly intellectually honest...but
it's in his toolbox though and you can tell it gets heavy use by how
smoothly he does it. Not an intelligent homophobe. A slick homophobe
perhaps...but I rather think that Intelligent Homophobe is an oxymoron
anyway.
MZ> As regards Nietzsche's position, I see it as a laudable attempt
MZ> to reverse the execrable tendency of Western moral and political
MZ> philosophy to derive its sense of legitimacy from a claim of
MZ> unfair victimization.
Oh...so that's what Nietzsche was doing... Any Nietzsche readers
care to comment...? Any Godel readers...?
MZ> My position is not designed to elicit respect.
And a good thing, that...
MZ> I feel that it is my human right and moral responsibility to speak up
MZ> in defense of my views. Moreover, I feel obligated to contradict claims
MZ> that I find fallacious and offensive to reason.
So says every anti-Gay bigot who wanders in here with some pseudo
intellectual claptrap they imagine isn't already been heard in here
hundreds of times in a week and which Conclusively Proves that homosexuals
are immoral pond scum who rightfully belong well beneath the contempt of
decent supermen. Oh...I'm just exercising my right to defend my views (as
though the issue is the Right and not the Views)...Oh...I'm just correcting
faulty reasoning (except reason is usually the first thing they jettison in
a debate on the issue...wait till he gets to his Available Cunt
hypothesis...).
MZ> ...my sole excuse for being habitually cruel to others weaker than
MZ> myself, is that I fancy that such treatment would have the effect of making
MZ> them stronger.
Probably it's pleasurable too. In fact it's probably a limitless
experience for him...
MZ> See above.
I cite....therefore I am. What is ape to man...a laughing
stock...a thing of shame...and the same shall be said of man to lookup
tables...
-Bruce Garrett
Bruce Garrett
> > it is not at all clear to me that his homosexual behaviour constitutes
> > some sort of 'abuse' of his genetic makeup. Is it clear to you, Mikhail?
MZ> Hint: ask an analogous question about kleptomania.
You don't often see Zeleny flinch from taking the low ground,
unless doing it would make him look in his own mind like a common bigot and
not one with a learned pedigree. His "Give my warmest regards to Michel
Foucault when you see him" may strike Him as though it's significantly
different from something a Daniel Karnes might spit on the users here such
as "I hope you die from AIDS you turd packing faggot just like your stupid
faggot friend Foucault did!" but the only difference between them is one of
smoothness of style. That it was kleptomania he suggests here and not
Pedophilia, or Axe Murderers is interesting for it's unusual tepidness; but
of course this is just a simple variant of an argument that is common
currency among the anti-Gay set here: "if we consider homosexuality a valid
moral lifestyle we might as well consider Murder|Child Abuse|Rape valid and
moral too."
We can rationally argue the harm to society in thievery. What is
still wanting is a rational argument for the harm to society in
homosexuality, as it is actually expressed in the human race (as opposed
to the apocalyptic fantasies of the bigots). If you think that Zeleny has
discovered such an argument...stick around. Wait till he gets to his
Available Cunt hypothesis...
MZ> ...the moral purpose of eroticism is due to the genetic makeup of uts
MZ> participants, but not identical with it.
The moral purpose of eroticism is not identical with the genetic
makeup of humans. It springs from the genetic makeup of humans but it
compasses more then strictly the sum of the genetic makeup of humans.
There are no grounds that support Zeleny's anti-Gay positions here. But he
tosses it to us anyway...
MZ> Ultimately, all purposes belong to moral agents, and hence the only
MZ> relevant sort of abuse, is the abuse of an agent.
Ultimately, Zeleny might consider answering Philip's question
...specifically, how does homosexual behaviour constitute abuse of a
homosexual's genetic makeup? Of course he'd need to have one...
> >Besides, is reproduction really an *absolute* moral need? Artificial
> >insemination aside, isn't everyone's ability to reproduce limited
> >among other things by the number of willing partners of the opposite
> >sex?
MZ> The possibility of reproduction is relative to circumstances.
Circumstances which could include a homosexual orientation,
say...?
MZ> Thus it is not a moral need that such a possibility be present whilst
MZ> you are cramming for a final in a Widener library stall.
Or, if you're a Gay male, while laying down your boyfriend...
> >Here's a thought experiment: imagine a group of male homosexuals
> >banished by some primitive tribe to a lonely God-forsaken island for
> >life. Tropical nature supples all everyday necessities - but no human
> >females. All the men believe that they are attracted to members of
> >their own sex by their very nature. Would it still be immoral for any
> >one of them to have sex with a consenting partner, and if not, why
> >exactly not?
MZ> Consensuality is a red herring here, and so is the lack of females.
Zeleny's sexual morality hinges haphazardly on the Possibility of
reproduction. Like a second rate architect trying to fashion a roof on an
irregular plan when all he knows how to resolve are 90 degree angles, he
faces the not uncommon situation of having inflicted himself with a problem
he's out of his at depth solving, so like many fine craftsmen he fudges it
here and there and prays it never has to bear any weight.
He knows he can't hang sexual morality on the certainty or even the
intent of reproduction like the God Created Sex For Procreation And
Procreation Alone crowd because in many heterosexual couples it is not a
certain or intended result and everyone knows heterosexual couplings are
good regardless of whether or not they actually produce offspring, whereas
homosexual couplings are by definition bad. So he's fixed on the mere
Possibility (as it developed in the last round, the possibility in some
possible world of possibilities, in some possible universe...in some sagan
of possibilities and universes...long long ago and far far away...) as an
avenue of rescue.
Thus, it is because homosexual sex (according to Zeleny) eliminates
the Possibility of reproduction that it is immoral. You can see the loose
joints miles away and it gets Very Strange Very Fast as he tries to
gerrymander infertile heterosexual couples and heterosexuals using
contraception and people such as priests who practice celibacy into the
Good Guys column while holding on this view of sexual morality.
Philip basically went after the hinge in Zeleny's morality (as
have others before him, and to the same effect). Philip's question as I
understood it was: If the Possibility of their engaging in reproductive
sexual behavior is nul due to circumstance beyond their control, would
sexual relations between homosexuals still be immoral?
Zeleny's answer in Translation: That's a very hard question for
me to answer directly...so I won't. Instead, I'll duck the question
altogether and attack it's formulation.
MZ> The former is irrelevant because it is impossible to dispense with the
MZ> moral objections against the abuse of oneself or others by dint of any
MZ> form of agreement
But they are not abusing themselves by loving each other.
Furthermore if the fulcrum of the moral issue is the Possibility of
reproduction and that actions which eliminate that possibility are what
makes sex acts immoral then if the possibility of reproduction has been
eliminated altogether by circumstances outside of the control of the
parties involved any acts by them with regard to sex cannot be immoral
because there is no possibility of moral behavior with regard to sex. Not
having any sex at all under those circumstances still qualifies as a choice
which acts to eliminate the possibility of reproduction...but in this case
having sex anyway has exactly the same effect. Likewise they cannot choose
to act in an immoral fashion regarding sex either; Anything they do
regarding sex is going to be immoral by this standard and there is nothing
any of them can choose to do about sex which will make the choice immoral
since =any= choice they make is predestined to be immoral regardless.
Morality is choice; where there is no possibility of choice there
is no possibility of morality.
You can see where this theory of sexual morality takes us in very
short order. With it you could argue that once the possibility of
reproduction is removed from an individual's scope then no sexual act they
commit afterward can be either moral or immoral. By removing the heart of
the moral issue, the possibility of procreation, you eliminate all
questions of morality from sex entirely. The only relevant question
becomes, did the parties in question have control over their fate when this
occurred? If they didn't, then for them questions of sexual morality cease
to exist.
Not exactly a thrilling prospect for a group of people and those
they might have occasion to interact with...yet...there we are.
MZ> ...the latter is irrelevant because moral principles are not abrogated by
MZ> opportunity, or lack thereof.
This is true enough. If a homosexual is prevented from enjoying a
fulfilling intimate relationship with another by custom and/or law and are
further prevented from enjoying normal peer relationships with other
members of their society due to the ignorant prejudices against homosexuals
prevalent within that society, it is certainly not enough to say that their
moral right to either of these relationships does not exist by virtue of
the fact that the opportunity for them does not exist.
-Bruce Garrett
John Donald Collier
>I do not have the quote available, but Nietzsche considered it a
>duty to be decent towards those weaker than onesself. It may
>be arrogant to think of people as weaker than onesself, but
>if a duty to be decent to them is the result, is it really a problem?
You gave a nice rebuttal. Your interpretation of Nietzsche's views
agrees with Bert Dreyfus's interpretation as well. I don't think it is
necessary to read anything but _Beyond Good and Evil_ to confirm your
interpretation, and your last point (above). There are certainly
people who could learn from your point. It could be paraphrased as
follows:
If you really feel you are stronger than someone else
then you have a duty to be decent to them.
What we call arrogance (or at least, its closest counterpart) is not
regarded as a flaw in many cultures. Not being decent to others
who are weaker is not universally condemned either, but I suspect
it comes closer. Certainly it isn't much credit to the person
who isn't decent to those weaker than themselves.
Philip Nikolayev
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
> In article <NIKOLAY.93...@husc11.harvard.edu>
> nik...@husc11.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug23.0...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
[...]
PN
>>kind of choice that most people don't consciously make.) However,
>>*if* a man's homosexual preference is genetically programmed (or,
>>hypothetically, *if* it is programmed to the complete exclusion of a
>>homosexual man's ability to function successfully in any
>>heterosexual act unless he resorts to homosexual fantasies, for
>>example), it is not at all clear to me that his homosexual behaviour
>>constitutes some sort of 'abuse' of his genetic makeup. Is it clear
>>to you, Mikhail?
MZ
> Hint: ask an analogous question about kleptomania. Note that you are
> confusing the explanans with the explanandum: the moral purpose of
> eroticism is due to the genetic makeup of its participants, but not
> identical with it. Ultimately, all purposes belong to moral agents,
> and hence the only relevant sort of abuse, is the abuse of an agent.
Mea culpa, I phrased the objection incorrectly. Nevertheless, if, as
you say, the moral purpose of eroticism is to be derived from the
genetic makeup, how could you derive the moral need for reproductive
sex from an individual genetic makeup that precludes the agent's
interest in reproductive sex and causes him to prefer same-sex
partners?
I don't think that kleptomania offers a valid analogy, unless you
propose to establish the moral desirability of its opposite on the
basis of a genetic makeup.
> cordially, | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
> mikhail | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
> zel...@husc.harvard.edu | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
Philip Nikolayev
nik...@husc.harvard.edu
Mikhail Zeleny
bru...@access.digex.net (Bruce Garrett) writes, inter alia:
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes to somebody else:
>[...]
>>Recall your erstwhile assertion that "Homosexual behavior is *prima
>>faciae* good for homosexual people." Michel Foucault, with his quest for
>>"limit experiences", would appear to constitute a counterexample to your
>>claim.
> Now the phrase "limitless experiences" (I reckon he meant
>"limitless experiences" instead of what he actually wrote which was "limit
>experiences" but this is only because the phrase "limit experiences" makes
>utterly no sense as he used it in the above argument.
I said exactly what I meant. The responsibility to make sense of
it lies entirely with you. If you are unsure of what the phrase
might mean, try asking, or read up on the subject.
> I freely admit
>that's a pretty slender thread to hang a judgment as to what he really
>meant on...) is as slippery as a car salesman's "unlimited milage
>warranty". But never mind. It's sludge like this that's enough to put to
>bed any claim that he's an intelligent homophobe. That homosexual behavior
>is good for homosexuals is not to say or even to argue that a quest for
>"Limitless Experiences", (never mind whether or not this quest in the sense
>that he means it was Michel Foucault's) is a good thing for homosexuals or
>for that matter anyone.
Michel Foucault went on an extended tour of the San Francisco
bathhouses and S&M clubs in conscious and deliberate search of
the AIDS virus that was to kill him shortly thereafter. Now, the
simple trick about refuting a general claim, is to find a single
counterexample, such as is afforded by the well-documented fact
that Foucault's homosexual behavior, in virtue of the very factor
that evidently made it pleasurable, was not at all good for
*that* particular homosexual. Although it remains to be shown,
just to what extent the mechanisms of pleasure operative in
Foucault's case, are characteristic of the typical instance of
male homosexual contact, it is clear that a parallel can be made
between the physical degradation that constitutes an integral
part of the experience in question, and the moral degradation of
human sexuality, that is implicit in every instance of sexual
contact between parties necessarily unsuited for producing
offspring together. Foucault's fatal quest for limit experiences
seems to have been inspired by the peculiar erotic appeal of
self-extermination, which is only the extreme manifestation of
a sexuality that derives its attraction from its fundamental lack
of natural human issue. In this way, his fate is both tragic and
exemplary.
>[...]
>-Bruce Garrett
Mikhail Zeleny
nik...@husc8.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>In article <1993Aug23.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <NIKOLAY.93...@husc11.harvard.edu>
>>nik...@husc11.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>>>In article <1993Aug23.0...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>>>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>[...]
PN
>>>kind of choice that most people don't consciously make.) However,
>>>*if* a man's homosexual preference is genetically programmed (or,
>>>hypothetically, *if* it is programmed to the complete exclusion of a
>>>homosexual man's ability to function successfully in any
>>>heterosexual act unless he resorts to homosexual fantasies, for
>>>example), it is not at all clear to me that his homosexual behaviour
>>>constitutes some sort of 'abuse' of his genetic makeup. Is it clear
>>>to you, Mikhail?
MZ
>>Hint: ask an analogous question about kleptomania. Note that you are
>>confusing the explanans with the explanandum: the moral purpose of
>>eroticism is due to the genetic makeup of its participants, but not
>>identical with it. Ultimately, all purposes belong to moral agents,
>>and hence the only relevant sort of abuse, is the abuse of an agent.
PN
>Mea culpa, I phrased the objection incorrectly. Nevertheless, if, as
>you say, the moral purpose of eroticism is to be derived from the
>genetic makeup, how could you derive the moral need for reproductive
>sex from an individual genetic makeup that precludes the agent's
>interest in reproductive sex and causes him to prefer same-sex
>partners?
Attention: the moral purpose of eroticism is due to the genetic makeup
of its participants, in the sense that their genetic identity enables
them to seek the fulfillment of their sexuality in the genesis of
offspring; however this does not entail that it is to be derived from
their genetic makeup alone, without regard for the causal powers it
represents. Even assuming that one's genetic makeup may dispose him
towards preferring same-sex partners, it does not follow that this
innate preference somehow abrogates his natural capacity to produce
offspring. In other words, the question is not what one may be
disposed to prefer, but what he is in principle capable of doing.
>I don't think that kleptomania offers a valid analogy, unless you
>propose to establish the moral desirability of its opposite on the
>basis of a genetic makeup.
Kleptomania is a compulsion to steal. Assuming that your moral code
deems theft to be blameworthy, it is likely to be based on a theory of
possessive individualism that treats the right to property as arising
from the effort expended by the proprietor in alienating his
possessions from the state of nature. Thus stealing would be regarded
as an abuse of the right one has acquired in things in virtue of the
right one has in his person. In short, theft would constitute a
transgression against the political nature of its victim by dint of
subverting his right and obligation to follow Locke's Fundamental Law
of Nature (to preserve one's own life first, and the lives of all
mankind thereafter) through acquiring, controlling, and disposing of
his property. Analogously, homosexual sex may be regarded as a
transgression against the biological nature of its victim by dint of
subverting his right and obligation to follow the same law through
continuing both his person and mankind in his offspring.
>Philip Nikolayev
>nik...@husc.harvard.edu
KRESSJA
>Attention: the moral purpose of eroticism is due to the genetic makeup
>of its participants, in the sense that their genetic identity enables
>them to seek the fulfillment of their sexuality in the genesis of
>offspring; however this does not entail that it is to be derived from
>their genetic makeup alone, without regard for the causal powers it
>represents. Even assuming that one's genetic makeup may dispose him
>towards preferring same-sex partners, it does not follow that this
>innate preference somehow abrogates his natural capacity to produce
>offspring. In other words, the question is not what one may be
>disposed to prefer, but what he is in principle capable of doing.
How do you ground this teleological interpretation of human sexuality?
(I mean other than straight-out, ayn-rand-would-be-proud-of-you assertions)
Is God lurking somewhere in the background of your system, waiting to
call us all to our own proper ends as human beings?
>Kleptomania is a compulsion to steal. Assuming that your moral code
>deems theft to be blameworthy, it is likely to be based on a theory of
>possessive individualism that treats the right to property as arising
>from the effort expended by the proprietor in alienating his
>possessions from the state of nature. Thus stealing would be regarded
>as an abuse of the right one has acquired in things in virtue of the
>right one has in his person. In short, theft would constitute a
>transgression against the political nature of its victim by dint of
>subverting his right and obligation to follow Locke's Fundamental Law
>of Nature (to preserve one's own life first, and the lives of all
>mankind thereafter) through acquiring, controlling, and disposing of
>his property. Analogously, homosexual sex may be regarded as a
>transgression against the biological nature of its victim by dint of
>subverting his right and obligation to follow the same law through
>continuing both his person and mankind in his offspring.
Your transition from a political transgression to an "analogous"
biological offense remains to be demonstrated. You have not shown
that homosexual sex has the effect of "subverting" the right and
obligation which you have not established. Were such a biological
right and obligation established, how would homosexual sex subvert
it anymore than lending property to a friend subverts the right of
property? After all, homosexual conduct, or for that matter,
homosexual pair-bonding doesn't remove one's capacity to sire or
bear offspring. I'm interested to know where the imperative to breed
arises?
Julian Macassey
>
>who is encouraging this idiot??
>
>names! i want names!!
I think you want a shift key more than anything else. Then
maybe a clue.
--
Julian Macassey, N6ARE jul...@bongo.tele.com Voice: (213) 653-4495
Paper Mail: 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue, Hollywood, California 90046-7142
Mikhail Zeleny
kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
>In article <1993Aug25.0...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>Attention: the moral purpose of eroticism is due to the genetic makeup
>>of its participants, in the sense that their genetic identity enables
>>them to seek the fulfillment of their sexuality in the genesis of
>>offspring; however this does not entail that it is to be derived from
>>their genetic makeup alone, without regard for the causal powers it
>>represents. Even assuming that one's genetic makeup may dispose him
>>towards preferring same-sex partners, it does not follow that this
>>innate preference somehow abrogates his natural capacity to produce
>>offspring. In other words, the question is not what one may be
>>disposed to prefer, but what he is in principle capable of doing.
>How do you ground this teleological interpretation of human sexuality?
>(I mean other than straight-out, ayn-rand-would-be-proud-of-you assertions)
>Is God lurking somewhere in the background of your system, waiting to
>call us all to our own proper ends as human beings?
Simple: I assume that human sexuality has a moral purpose, and
proceed to eliminate plausible alternatives, along the lines I
indicated in my last response to Mike Morris. If you can stomach
a classical reference, I suggest the _Symposium_ 207d-208b, which
gives eloquent support for my conclusion.
I take it that praiseworthiness and blameworthiness are qualities
of individual actions. To maintain otherwise would seem to commit
one to the mindset of the Catholic dogma: you can break any rule
you please, as long as you have the presence of mind to repent
just before you keel over. Sorry, but I see no way to stipulate a
standard metric of merit that would allow one to calculate the
moral "bottom line" of a lifetime of transgression and repentance.
Moreover, your analogy with lending does not hold in light of the
fact that control and alienability of property constitute the very
reasons for advancing the doctrine of property rights. Note also
that in lending your goods to a friend, you continue to maintain
your property rights therein, and so retain your rightful ability
to utilize them for the purposes required by Locke's Fundamental
Law of Nature; whereas by indulging in a necessarily sterile
sexual activity, you _ipso facto_ wilfully and perversely abjure
and abrogate your compliance with the said law, by dint of
thoroughly subverting for its duration your natural means for
perpetuating mankind. Accordingly, the relevant imperative is not
meant to enjoin you to breed, but to enjoin you from practicing an
activity which is necessarily bound to remain unfulfilled in its
moral purpose.
>-JK
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>| | |
>| John Kress | "Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a |
>| | rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks." |
>| | -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
>|________________|___________________________________________________________|
Bruce Garrett
> >Attention: the moral purpose of eroticism is due to the genetic makeup
> >of its participants, in the sense that their genetic identity enables
> >them to seek the fulfillment of their sexuality in the genesis of
> >offspring...
K> How do you ground this teleological interpretation of human sexuality?
K> (I mean other than straight-out, ayn-rand-would-be-proud-of-you
K> assertions) Is God lurking somewhere in the background of your system,
K> waiting to call us all to our own proper ends as human beings?
I reckon Zeleny's your basic Sex As Part Of God's Grand Plan To
Propogate The Human Race After The Fall From Grace cultist but I think it
embarrasses him deeply. He's a fifth rate Bill Ray whose arguments lack
the vitality of solid religious conviction; he hedges, so he fills in the
gaps where his faith fails him by grafting in as much worldly knowledge as
he can muster from going to the library and browsing the card catalogue.
In a way he's like a deeply closeted homosexual. He wants
desperately to know the joys of priests in rococo temples and evangelists
in stifling revival tents; other kindred souls whose language and inner
passions he knows and understands, yet he does not dare to be seen with one
in public let alone holding one's hand...so he goes out with philosophers
and geneticists and makes a point to be seen in their company. Some Gays
would call it "wearing a beard" which is slang for a homosexual who dates
with the opposite sex. His local priest could probably slap some sense
into him but the first step is admitting to yourself you have these
desires...
Z> You have not shown that homosexual sex has the effect of "subverting"
Z> the right and obligation which you have not established.
Indeed...every link in his chain fails. If you point that out to
him though he'll likely tell you that you're just not reading the right
philosophers and direct you to a few. The ones in the closet always
boast the loudest. If he'd just start going out with missionaries instead
of philosophers he'd be a lot better adjusted.
-Bruce Garrett
Gene W. Smith
kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
>In article <1993Aug24.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes...
>>If Nietzsche could have gotten his smarmy ass kicked by a real-life
>>slave after giving a smug, superior lecture about slave mentality, it
>>would have done him and his philosophy a world of good; and that was
>>*my* point.
>You shouldn't weaken your position with remarks like this. I mean, you don't
>think that Zeleny UNDERSTANDS Nietzsche, do you?
No. In fact, that was what I was saying in part. However, just about
the weakest and stupidest thing in Nietzsche is this contempt he seems
to feel for slaves. Maybe he got it from reading too many classical
authors, but I do think that meeting real slaves would have been an
excellent thing for a certain flatulent professor of philology who
presumed to sit around sucking beer from his mustache in Basel and
theorizing as to the reasons why he is so much better than slaves, or
people who are like slaves.
Getting in the way of Ceasere Borgia on a rampage would have been
*another* valuable learning experience.
>"Let us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: 'Man *ought* to
>be such and such!' Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the
>abundance of a lavish play and change of forms--and some wretched loafer of
>a moralist comments: 'No! Man ought to be different." He even knows what man
>should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints himself on the wall
>and comments, 'Ecce Homo!'" (TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS)
>Sound like anyone we know?
I presume you mean Z, but I think Mike Morris could read this with
profit, after having explained to us all that Beethoven composing
great music in his smelly old bachelor apartment could never be on the
same exalted moral plane as Bach composing great music in the midst of
the uproar of a huge family.
Gene W. Smith
>Gene W. Smith (gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de) wrote:
>Did N. really worship Borgia?
>Here is a section quoted from Kaufman's 'Nietzsche, Philosopher, Psychologist,
>Antichrist:
Try reading Nietzsche and not Kaufman.
>"Some of Nietzsche's ideas that have generally been minconstrued
>are comprehensible if only this contrast of sublimation and
>emasculation is taken into account. It is, for example, a common
>misconception that Nietzsche admired Cesare Borgia and glorified him."
I seem to recall one passage where he said that one Cesare Borgia was
worth any number of _hoi polloi_.
>It is not clear to me that N. did worship Borgia.
Maybe. I do seem to recall such a passage in N., however.
>: The schoolyard bully
>: who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
>: but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack.
>I do not at all get the impression that N. was a bully.
Geez. What makes you think I was talking about N.?
>: Your attempt to
>: ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
>: the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
>: psychological problem.
>Your understanding of Nietzsche and his philosophy seems to be
>differetn from my own (admittedly limited) knowledge.
Your understanding of what I write is pretty minimal. I am sure
Z. could tell you to whom this passage referred.
Gene W. Smith
(Michael Feld) writes:
>Um -- you sure you don't want to hold off this flame until you
>discover my race or colour or sexual preference or views on
>homosexuality?
Not until you explain what you meant by comparing Brother Zeleny to
Brother Malcom. I don't see the Zman as the Superman who will deliver
homosexuals from their slave morality, and I don't see what you think
you are accomplishing in this argument, now or ever.
>Joy to the merrry-go-round-ers.
Why not at least try to say something intelligent on your own account
instead of picking silly nits with me an Arne Adolphson? You might
surprise yourself and us, and find a reason to stick around.
Doug Quarnstrom
: >Gene W. Smith (gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de) wrote:
: >Did N. really worship Borgia?
: >Here is a section quoted from Kaufman's 'Nietzsche, Philosopher, Psychologist,
: >Antichrist:
: Try reading Nietzsche and not Kaufman.
I have read several of N.'s works. I have also read a couple of
different commentators, Kaufman and Alderman. My reading tends to,
in general, agree with their conclusions, although I have to hold
out the possibility that they are too kind in their interpretations
until I have read all of N.'s work, if I ever do.
[deletia]
: >: The schoolyard bully
: >: who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
: >: but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack.
: >I do not at all get the impression that N. was a bully.
: Geez. What makes you think I was talking about N.?
..why the fact that you were talking about him, of course.
The fact that you were paralleling the behavior you imagine of
him with the behavior of Zeleney does not mean that you were not
saying things about Z. In fact, given that you were using
N. as a parallel to the behavior of Z., any accusation you
throw at one you are throwing at the other.
: >: Your attempt to
: >: ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
: >: the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
: >: psychological problem.
: >Your understanding of Nietzsche and his philosophy seems to be
: >differetn from my own (admittedly limited) knowledge.
: Your understanding of what I write is pretty minimal. I am sure
: Z. could tell you to whom this passage referred.
Gene, look at what you wrote. What you wrote was this:
"Your [meaning Zeleney's] attempt to ape this [meaning Nietzsche] bully..."
It is quite odd to me that you assert that my understanding of this
completely straightforward parsing job is inadequate. You called
N. a bully. You ALSO called Z. a bully. I have no interest in
attempting to defend Z. He can do so himself if he wishes. But I
think you are misrepresenting N., and I simply wanted to say so.
My understanding of who you called a bully is perfect. If you did
not mean to call N. a bully, you can simply say so.
doug
Mikhail Zeleny
bru...@access.digex.net (Bruce Garrett) writes:
> kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes...
>>>Attention: the moral purpose of eroticism is due to the genetic makeup
>>>of its participants, in the sense that their genetic identity enables
>>>them to seek the fulfillment of their sexuality in the genesis of
>>>offspring...
>>How do you ground this teleological interpretation of human sexuality?
>>(I mean other than straight-out, ayn-rand-would-be-proud-of-you
>>assertions) Is God lurking somewhere in the background of your system,
>>waiting to call us all to our own proper ends as human beings?
> I reckon Zeleny's your basic Sex As Part Of God's Grand Plan To
>Propogate The Human Race After The Fall From Grace cultist but I think it
>embarrasses him deeply. He's a fifth rate Bill Ray whose arguments lack
>the vitality of solid religious conviction; he hedges, so he fills in the
>gaps where his faith fails him by grafting in as much worldly knowledge as
>he can muster from going to the library and browsing the card catalogue.
>
> In a way he's like a deeply closeted homosexual. He wants
>desperately to know the joys of priests in rococo temples and evangelists
>in stifling revival tents; other kindred souls whose language and inner
>passions he knows and understands, yet he does not dare to be seen with one
>in public let alone holding one's hand...so he goes out with philosophers
>and geneticists and makes a point to be seen in their company. Some Gays
>would call it "wearing a beard" which is slang for a homosexual who dates
>with the opposite sex. His local priest could probably slap some sense
>into him but the first step is admitting to yourself you have these
>desires...
Amusing. Your writing is improving, to the point that one can follow
your prose. The next step would be to write about something that has
some relevance to the topic of this discussion.
>>You have not shown that homosexual sex has the effect of "subverting"
>>the right and obligation which you have not established.
> Indeed...every link in his chain fails. If you point that out to
>him though he'll likely tell you that you're just not reading the right
>philosophers and direct you to a few. The ones in the closet always
>boast the loudest. If he'd just start going out with missionaries instead
>of philosophers he'd be a lot better adjusted.
It need not bother you that I already answered the above objection.
After all, your point in doing this is not to rebut my argument, but
to show that you are jolly well unaffected by its conclusions.
Isn't it time you started talking about my mother?
>-Bruce Garrett
Mikhail Zeleny
ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>In article <1993Aug23.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <NIKOLAY.93...@husc11.harvard.edu>
>>nik...@husc11.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>>>Here's a thought experiment: imagine a group of male homosexuals
>>>banished by some primitive tribe to a lonely God-forsaken island for
>>>life. Tropical nature supples all everyday necessities - but no human
>>>females. All the men believe that they are attracted to members of
>>>their own sex by their very nature. Would it still be immoral for any
>>>one of them to have sex with a consenting partner, and if not, why
>>>exactly not?
>>Consensuality is a red herring here, and so is the lack of females.
>>The former is irrelevant because it is impossible to dispense with the
>>moral objections against the abuse of oneself or others by dint of any
>>form of agreement; the latter is irrelevant because moral principles
>>are not abrogated by opportunity, or lack thereof.
>In other words, it would still be immoral. Could you explain once
>again what "moral objections against the abuse of oneself or others"
>you have to homosexual behavior, and on what moral principles those
>objections are grounded? I do hope you choose to answer the question,
>rather than state that you have covered the topic repeatedly before.
>(Certainly I've seen no clear summary of your argument in talk.
>philosophy.misc or elsewhere.)
I have just done so in other articles on this thread. However I
do not expect us to improve on our previous result of politely
agreeing to disagree. If you cannot find fault with my argument,
you are always at liberty to reject its intuitive premisses.
After all, no one can be faulted for not sharing somebody else's
intuitions.
>--
>Rob Jellinghaus ro...@netcom.com uunet!netcom!robj
Gene W. Smith
writes:
>: >: The schoolyard bully
>: >: who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
>: >: but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack.
>: >I do not at all get the impression that N. was a bully.
>: Geez. What makes you think I was talking about N.?
>..why the fact that you were talking about him, of course.
Complete and utter crap. You have a hell of a nerve, correcting
me on the interpretation of what I said.
If you read N. this badly, you are in trouble.
>Gene, look at what you wrote. What you wrote was this:
> "Your [meaning Zeleney's] attempt to ape this [meaning Nietzsche] bully..."
Get a brain. I was talking about a schoolyard bully. Can you read?
Can you think?
The way people lead to the defense of Nietzsche around here is truly
amazing. The least you could do is save it for when I really am
insulting him.
>It is quite odd to me that you assert that my understanding of this
>completely straightforward parsing job is inadequate.
It is.
>You called N. a bully.
I'll call you a nitwit if you continue this line of stupidity.
>My understanding of who you called a bully is perfect.
Fine. You are *are* a nitwit, as well as a pompous ass. Get lost and
take your stupid rewritings of what I wrote with you.
>If you did not mean to call N. a bully, you can simply say so.
I *did* say so, and now you claim I am wrong. Nitwit.
242 lbs before cooking
>Because other voices from that venue have expressed an opposing
>request with greater eloquence and persuasion.
Damn. Still hearing those voices in your head, Mikey? I've heard of
this real neat technique, involving a power drill, for releasing them.
You have a really big head, I'd recommend a fairly large bit. Through
the forehead. Remember to take pictures that can later be distributed
on alt.tasteless.
>To translate this
>in monosyllabic idiom adequate to your culture and comprehension:
Boy, it looks like you got so confused, looking up all those big
words, that you entirely blew it on the little ones.
>You lose.
But she still, clearly, isn't the loser.
>Piss off.
Oh, you're just a brute. A big, bad blowhard. But you just aren't
really that impressive. Certainly not deserving of the 5 to 8
newsgroups you allocate yourself. Tell you what, Mikey. Produce the
names of a your stolid, silent supporters on alt.peeves or, kindly,
follow your own advice.
andy
ba...@abingdon.sun.com
--
"Being intelligent doesn't mean you aren't stupid."
-- Robert Fulghum
242 lbs before cooking
>Then maybe a clue.
Oh no! Julian, demonstrating just how incisive and biting his wit can
be, recommends that Laura get a clue!
Your repartee is just darling, Julie, and a few good years of
nurturing it may bring you to the point where it doesn't appear, to
all and sundry, that you're simply standing in a puddle of your own
urine, throwing a tantrum.
Get a clue, indeed. Are you going to then recommend she frame it and
hang it over the mantle, as you've done, to marvel at its
singularity?
andy
ba...@abigndon.sun.com
--
I'd really like to know. If there's anyone on the net who does this, I'd
appreciate an answer, and I promise to try not to be too judgmental, even
though it's obvious that you're a toadfucking smegmahead with the powers
of observation of a sea cucumber and the reasoning powers of a lichen.
Mikhail Zeleny
jcol...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) writes:
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>> Make Mr.
>> Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral.
>He has tried. At great length. Redundantly and repetitively. And he
>has failed miserably to come up with a sound argument.
>
>His far-fetched reasoning has included howlers about the function of
>sex, the autonomy of the individual, and the significance of death.
>It's good for a laugh, if you don't find it too offensive, but it soon
>wears a bit thin, much like any other religious dogma, if you are not
>a true believer. Arguing with him in public is more or less pointless,
>because he shifts topics faster than issues can be addressed fully.
>This simple rhetorical trick works, unfortunately, fairly well on the
>internet, where people get only snapshots of the debate. Creationists
>use much the same trick, perhaps with greater sophistication, but then,
>they have to operate in public fora, in a sustained way, for a couple
>of hours at a time, with a live audience.
Very well. You have claimed to be a philosopher, and have apprised
the public not only of the institutions you have attended, the degrees
that you have earned, and the eminent figures who have taught you, but
even of your outstanding GRE scores. I propose the next logical step:
both of us submit our respective theses for publication in a
respectable philosophical journal. I do the hoary old argument you
love so well, and you do your claim that the category of biological
sex has been renderd obsolete by the inexorable forces of progress.
Then we sit back and compare the reviews.
>--
>John Collier Email: jcol...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
>HPS -- U. of Melbourne Fax: +61 3 344 7959
>Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052
cordially, | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Bret D Weinraub
In article <1993Aug22....@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>Why is it racist to think that Nietzsche's analysis of "slave mentality"
>does not apply very well to the resentment felt by inner-city black
>people.
>
>Please be specific.
Please name the ones that you are referring to. This is a blatant pigeonhole
of a diverse community. How, after all this time, can we still not get it!!!!
-bret weinraub
Bret D Weinraub
Silly boys! Arguing about what kinds of persecution are worse. At the bottom
of all the pompous drivel being splashed across the net is a worthless topic,
since an classification system of crimes based on subtle philosophical
differences will only ever make a difference to pinheads such as yourselves.
Great minds from the past, if they are listening, are revulsed by this pathetic
posturing, if they can even be bothered to tune in.
As to the horrendous comment about going down to the getto and preaching
about slave mentality, YOU WATCH TOO MUCH TELEVISION!!!
Wisdom is not related to the number of polysyllabic words one can wrap around
simple ideas, but rather how many simple words one can wrap about complex
ideas.
Ooops, I just arted!
Doug Quarnstrom
: In article <CCBMt...@fc.hp.com> d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom)
: writes:
: >: >: but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack.
: >: >I do not at all get the impression that N. was a bully.
: >: Geez. What makes you think I was talking about N.?
: >..why the fact that you were talking about him, of course.
: Complete and utter crap. You have a hell of a nerve, correcting
: me on the interpretation of what I said.
: If you read N. this badly, you are in trouble.
Certainly I am always concerned about the accuracy of my reading ability.
I work on it. I do not claim it is perfect or even particularly good.
I think my conclusions about what you are saying are correct, but
your incredibly hostile disagreement leads me to understand that there
is no point discussing it. Anyone who cares about the debate
can has likely already formed an opinion, so I will drop the discussion.
: >Gene, look at what you wrote. What you wrote was this:
: > "Your [meaning Zeleney's] attempt to ape this [meaning Nietzsche] bully..."
: Get a brain.
I have one. It certainly errs now and again.
: I was talking about a schoolyard bully. Can you read?
: Can you think?
Yes on both counts.
I know that you can both read and
think. My understanding of N. is different than yours. I
do think, however, that the tone of your posts, and the things
you have specifically said about Nietzsche DO constitute an
attack upon him. If it is important for anyone other than myself
to believe this, the evidence can be gained by reading the string.
: The way people lead to the defense of Nietzsche around here is truly
: amazing. The least you could do is save it for when I really am
: insulting him.
I imagine that your insults must be quite quite hostile indeed of
some of the things you have said about N. in this string do
not constitute insult.
: >It is quite odd to me that you assert that my understanding of this
: >completely straightforward parsing job is inadequate.
: It is.
Very well.
: >You called N. a bully.
: I'll call you a nitwit if you continue this line of stupidity.
Call me whatever you like Gene.
: >My understanding of who you called a bully is perfect.
: Fine. You are *are* a nitwit, as well as a pompous ass.
: Get lost and
: take your stupid rewritings of what I wrote with you.
: >If you did not mean to call N. a bully, you can simply say so.
: I *did* say so, and now you claim I am wrong. Nitwit.
Very well, we can allow this debate to end with the conclusion that
you are wrong and I am a nitwit. You and I have collaborated
to significantly advance human knowledge it this little exchange.
Certainly explanation will mean little, but some of the things you
said about N. (or that I thought you said) made me rather angry
in the same way that you seem to be quite angry toward Z.
I have become angry in the defense of a man (N.) whose writings
I admire and value, and this led me to attempt to defend him.
My best ability to do so is essentially expended. Whether or not
you insulted N. and whether or not I spoke well in defense can
be determined by the readers who care, assuming that their number
is greater than 0.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
Gene is essentially correct that my subsitution of Nietzsche for
the word "this" in the sentence below was not as certain as
I tried to pretend:
: Your attempt to
: ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
: the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
: psychological problem.
As Gene pointed out, the word "this" clearly refers to the bully.
The reason I made the subsitution is that these sentences are
all in the same paragraph, and hence I assume that there is
some thematic unity among them. Here is the relevant paragraph:
: By the way, do you think that Nieztsche's worship of the Strong Man,
: such as Caesere Borgia, was evidence of strength in Nietzsche? Just
: about anybody who has thought about it has drawn the opposite
: conclusion, which is so obvious it is a cliche. The schoolyard bully
: who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
: but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack. Your attempt to
: ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
: the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
: psychological problem.
Gene asks a quesiton about Nietzsche. It is a rhetorical question
that to ME indicates he considers N. weak in this instance.
He then asserts that "just about anybody" who thinks about it
would agree that this is a weakness in Nietzsche.
Now I began by interpreting this as an insult. Perhaps it is not,
but I read it that way. I read it as a misrepresentation of
what N. was saying, or at least an oversimplification.
The next sentence (given that it is in the same paragraph)
bears a thematic unity with the rest of the sentences,
and it begins to talk about the schoolyard bully not being superior just
because he can pick on schoolchildren. The thematic unity that ought
to be inherent in paragraphs led me to conclude that this bully
was an extension of the thoughts about Nietzsche. In fact, it
could refer to Borgia as easily (perhaps easier) as Nietzsche.
But the essential progression of the thoughts seemed to be:
Nietzsche is not strong, a schoolyard bully is not strong, Zeleney
is not strong. The essential equation of these things by the
unity of the paragraph led me to conclude that N. had been
called a bully.
I would certainly appreciate it (and I mean this) if some kind
soul who considers themselves a good reader would e-mail me
and explain to me where my conclusion that N. has been equated
with a bully goes wrong. I will grant that it is not a CERTAIN
as I wanted to pretend, but it still seems a fairly straightforward
conclusion based on the assumption that the paragraph has a thematic
unity. If I am violating some standard practice of reading in this
conclusion, it would certainly be to my benefit to learn what that is.
doug
Matt Austern
> Zeleny introduced peculiar complications by equating genotype with
> gender, so that people of opposite phenotype but the same genotype
> were actually engaged in immoral, homosexual sex; whereas persons of
> the same phenotype, but opposite genotype, were doing morally
> blameless heterosexual sex, even if everyone *thought* they were
> homosexuals.
Actually, note that despite all of these absurd contortions, we still
don't have an *argument* from Zeleny; all we have from him is a
particularly muddled (and not necessarily coherent) statement of just
what it is that he wants to prove. He still hasn't even begun to try
proving it.
I can't wait to see what his ethical justification is for such a
confused position. Well, actually that's a lie. Considering the
source, I suppose I really can wait.
--
Matthew Austern Maybe we can eventually make language a
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu complete impediment to understanding.
adolphson
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
> Michel Foucault went on an extended tour of the San Francisco
> bathhouses and S&M clubs in conscious and deliberate search of
> the AIDS virus that was to kill him shortly thereafter.
An exercise for the interested: find out when Foucault
died. Then find out when "the AIDS virus" was discovered.
Report back to us with your answer. Bonus points for
those who use this information to refelct on Mikhail
Zeleny's curious and intellectually dishonest campaign
against homosexuals.
--
Arne Adolphson "I've cast my pearls before swine, you know,
adol...@mizar.usc.edu but not _all_ of them."
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Libby Holman
Michael Feld
>In article <CC9ux...@ccu.umanitoba.ca> fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>(Michael Feld) writes:
>
>>Um -- you sure you don't want to hold off this flame until you
>>discover my race or colour or sexual preference or views on
>>homosexuality?
>
>Not until you explain what you meant by comparing Brother Zeleny to
>Brother Malcom. I don't see the Zman as the Superman who will deliver
>homosexuals from their slave morality, and I don't see what you think
>you are accomplishing in this argument, now or ever.
>
Let's try for some context: I suggested that it was racist to suppose
that Mr. Zeleny's preaching Nietzsche on Harlem streetcorners would
result in his being ill-treated; I said that that supposition entailed
that African Americans were immune to the virtues of philosophy.
Malcolm, I suggested, had preached Black pride as an antidote to
slavery, in a spirit in some ways similar to famous remarks of
Nietzsche's on the slave mentality. I hold no brief for Nietzsche
myself, and, for that matter, I suspect that you suspect that Zeleny
would be mugged in the inner city regardless of just which philosopher
he extolled, be it Aristotle, Rand, or Malcolm. Certainly I do not
find much resemblance between Mr. Zeleny and Mr. X, beyond daring and
a way with words, and I meant to suggest no such thing. I can only
guess at Mr. Zeleny's colour: from his hints about Nazism, I suspect
it is not as white as some of us might like. I think that people who
use "denigrate" as a pejorative are up there with those comfortable
with "jew him down" and "what a gyp", and fuck them all, the ignorant
racist swine.
>>Joy to the merrry-go-round-ers.
>
>Why not at least try to say something intelligent on your own account
>instead of picking silly nits with me an Arne Adolphson? You might
>surprise yourself and us, and find a reason to stick around.
>
I have nothing novel to contribute to the substance of debates on
homosexuality. The is/ought gap remains, it cannot be bridged by
appeals to genes or possible world semantics (not that we are
anti-semantic around here), there are no purposes in nature, humans
get to / got to do all the purposing; nor is there is anything wrong with
jerking off, so long as you don't scare the horses, even though it cannot get
anyone pregnant unless you do some neat recovery work (in which case
sodomy will do as well), and, since it is less immoral to beat dead
horses than live ones, I add that even if this were error and on me proved, I
certainly would not base a personal, social or political program on
the perceived naughtiness of where consenting adults choose to spend.
I don't rate black shirts higher than the brown.
But, hey, I do surprisingly have this to contribute to the process of
the discussion: if you want to fight with Mr. Zeleny, as opposed merely to
denouncing him, then pay attention to the nits. Use anti-nit lotion,
shower, then use a fine-tooth comb. What virtue do you see in using racist
language or imagery in fighting intolerance?
Ah, well, day-after-labour-day, it's back to being PAID for being
pompous, so I guess I owe you for this occasion to practice.
--
Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba | Voice: (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
adolphson
fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
> I think that people who
> use "denigrate" as a pejorative are up there with those comfortable
> with "jew him down" and "what a gyp", and fuck them all, the ignorant
> racist swine.
How, exactly, do people use "denigrate" as a pejorative?
You denigrate, you! Your mother wears army boots, and,
worse, she's a *denigrate*, too!
"Denigrate" means to cast aspersions on, to defame, to
belittle. It is not clear to me that the Romans ever
had skin color in mind when they used "denigrare", nor
is it clear to me that any native speaker of English has
skin color in mind when he uses "denigrate". When
I say that I don't like to wear black socks, I'm not
talking about African Americans.
> I don't rate black shirts higher than the brown.
But I bet you prefer white shirts, you racist denigrate, you!
--
Arne Adolphson "Man, you can't join the throng 'til you
adol...@mizar.usc.edu play your _own_ goddamn song."
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Lester Young
Bruce Garrett
> > Now the phrase "limitless experiences" (I reckon he meant
> > "limitless experiences" instead of what he actually wrote which was
> > "limit experiences" but this is only because the phrase "limit
> > experiences" makes utterly no sense as he used it in the above
> > argument.
MZ> I said exactly what I meant. The responsibility to make sense of
MZ> it lies entirely with you.
Sense of it:
For Zeleny being "habitually cruel to others weaker than myself" is
probably a "limit experience" rather then, as I had previously suggested, a
"limitless experience". Mea Culpa.
>MZ> Recall your erstwhile assertion that "Homosexual behavior is *prima
>MZ> faciae* good for homosexual people." Michel Foucault, with his quest
>MZ> for "limit experiences", would appear to constitute a counterexample
>MZ> to your claim.
> > That homosexual behavior is good for homosexuals is not to say or even
> > to argue that a quest for "Limitless Experiences", (never mind whether
> > or not this quest in the sense that he means it was Michel Foucault's)
> > is a good thing for homosexuals or for that matter anyone.
MZ> Michel Foucault went on an extended tour of the San Francisco
MZ> bathhouses and S&M clubs in conscious and deliberate search of the AIDS
MZ> virus that was to kill him shortly thereafter.
We see here that the essential difference between a Zeleny and a
Karnes is strictly one of syllable count and not content. The image here
of homosexuals as compulsive sexual beasts who are addicted to self
destruction and who walk with eager open eyes into the arms of AIDS could
have been taken straight out of a KKK or an Aryan Nation pamphlet save for
the gloss of professional rhetoric Zeleny gives it.
Someone such as a Walter Smith or even a Bill Ray might have said
that the individual engaged in a dangerous behavior which is characteristic
of homosexuals and that lead them to their own self destruction, but like
an alcoholic who can't stop himself until the bottle's dry Zeleny just
can't let it go at that; he has to claim the man =specifically= sought out
the virus. Like a UFO kook painting grandiose pictures of government/space
alien conspiracies Zeleny rushes headlong into bright eyed lunacy. Laying
in a bellicose stupor surrounded by rotgut dogmas is Zeleny's steady state
condition and you can tell how long he's been an addict by how quickly he
achieves it. Last year it was several weeks before it came to this.
MZ> Now, the simple trick about refuting a general claim, is to find a
MZ> single counterexample...
Except that this is not a counter example to the general claim, it
is a counter example to a different claim that does not involve the general
claim in any essential way. The general claim is that homosexual behavior
is beneficial to homosexuals; the claim Zeleny is refuting is that zillions
of random thoughtless junk food sexual encounters are a benefit to
homosexuals.
To cast the first in doubt what Zeleny needs is an example of a
homosexual affecting definably heterosexual behavior (as opposed to
behavior that is not necessarily either heterosexual or homosexual) and
clearly benefiting from that more then they would benefit by behaving in a
definably homosexual way. Science, notwithstanding the vigorous efforts
of the orthodox anti-Gay set, has been unable to turn up a single
instance where this has been clearly the case. Since Zeleny has no such
example to provide as a counter to the first claim he instead concocts an
entirely different and not coincidentally much easier to dispute claim and
attacks that one. Can you say strawman argument? Pronounce it thusly:
Mikhail Zeleny
MZ> ...it is clear that a parallel can be made between the physical
MZ> degradation that constitutes an integral part of the experience in
MZ> question, and the moral degradation of human sexuality, that is
MZ> implicit in every instance of sexual contact between parties
MZ> necessarily unsuited for producing offspring together.
This is clearly meant to seem as professionally written copy;
it's much more skillful then your usual mimeographed hate pamphlet...but we
can do better: we can make it apply to something actual.
It is abundantly clear the parallel between the intellectual
degradation that constitutes an integral part of the True Believer
experience and the moral degradation of human intellect that is explicit in
every instance of social contact between parties necessarily at odds with
the rest of humanity in regard to matters which have at their core issues
of truth, honor and common decency.
Zeleny's fatal quest for a rational proof of homosexuality's
immorality may have been inspired by the peculiar appeal of intellectual
and emotional self extermination, which is only an extreme example of a
belief system that derives it's attraction from it's fundamental lack of
human sympathy. In this way his fate is both tragic and cautionary.
-Bruce Garrett
Bruce Garrett
>>Attention: the moral purpose of eroticism is due to the genetic makeup
>>of its participants, in the sense that their genetic identity enables
>>them to seek the fulfillment of their sexuality in the genesis of
>>offspring;
>How do you ground this teleological interpretation of human sexuality?
MZ> Simple: I assume that human sexuality has a moral purpose...
Beware the hidden assumptions in a system...
MZ> ...and proceed to eliminate plausible alternatives...
Assumption: there is only One moral purpose for human sexuality to
find.
Assumption: we have identified all the possible alternative
purposes of human sexuality
MZ> ...along the lines I indicated in my last response to Mike Morris. If
MZ> you can stomach a classical reference, I suggest the _Symposium_
MZ> 207d-208b, which gives eloquent support for my conclusion.
Cite...cite...cite... My methodologies are not for me to reveal
but for you to dig out of me...
Assumption: a moral purpose for human sexuality can be discovered
by process of elimination.
Assumption: the methodology was applied consistently to all the
instances.
Assumption: the heuristic is relevant to the observable human
condition.
and so on...
>Your transition from a political transgression to an "analogous"
>biological offense remains to be demonstrated. You have not shown
>that homosexual sex has the effect of "subverting" the right and
>obligation which you have not established. Were such a biological
>right and obligation established, how would homosexual sex subvert
>it anymore than lending property to a friend subverts the right of
>property? After all, homosexual conduct, or for that matter,
>homosexual pair-bonding doesn't remove one's capacity to sire or
>bear offspring. I'm interested to know where the imperative to breed
>arises?
MZ> Sorry, but I see no way to stipulate a standard metric of merit that
MZ> would allow one to calculate the moral "bottom line" of a lifetime of
MZ> transgression and repentance.
The merest remotest possibility of conception in some alternate
universe of some world of All Possible Worlds is enough for Zeleny to
calculate precisely the moral bottom line for infertile heterosexual
couples, celibates and heterosexual couples using conception and
thoroughly dedicated to bearing no children and place them in the "swell
people" column; yet a preponderance or even a single instance of
homosexuality is enough to place the parties involved in it in the
"transgressed and not nice at all" column. Can you say Double Standard?
Pronounce it thusly:
Mikhail Zeleny
MZ> Moreover, your analogy with lending does not hold in light of the fact
MZ> that control and alienability of property constitute the very reasons
MZ> for advancing the doctrine of property rights.
Adam Smith, take note...
MZ> Note also that in lending your goods to a friend, you continue to
MZ> maintain your property rights therein, and so retain your rightful
MZ> ability to utilize them for the purposes required by Locke's
MZ> Fundamental Law of Nature...
...yet another dangling reference...this time to Locke...
Here Zeleny fails to note also that in lending your ...ah... goods
to a homosexual lover you continue to maintain your genetic potential
therein and so retain your ability to utilize them for the purposes
required by Zeleny's Fundamental Law of Nature. You've said Double
Standard once already, haven't you...?
MZ> ...whereas by indulging in a necessarily sterile sexual activity, you
MZ> _ipso facto_
Oh...god...not Ipso Facto. Anything but Ipso Facto...
MZ> wilfully and perversely abjure and abrogate your compliance with the
MZ> said law, by dint of thoroughly subverting for its duration your
MZ> natural means for perpetuating mankind. Accordingly, the relevant
MZ> imperative is not meant to enjoin you to breed, but to enjoin you from
MZ> practicing an activity which is necessarily bound to remain unfulfilled
MZ> in its moral purpose.
You might get the impression that Zeleny could well be casting into
the pit infertile heterosexual couples, celibates, heterosexuals who
masturbate as well as those heterosexual couples using contraception with
these lines...but no. Raise those arguments and he will wave his All
Possible Worlds buncombe at you.
Heterosexual couplings...even among those who are by virtue of
genetic problems genetically unable to procreate still retain a
delightfully vague and hard to pin down ability to do just that in some
virtual reality that homosexuals are not allowed into: if you raise the
same virtual reality arguments he fabricates for sterile heterosexuals back
at him with regards to homosexuals he'll stand pat on the above claim that
homosexuality is Necessarily bound to remain sterile for ever and ever in
all cases in all possible worlds in all possible universes long long ago in
a galaxy far far away and if you thought the virtual world explanation for
the morality of sterile heterosexual copulation was a little fuzzy just
wait until he gets to the reasons why the same moral constructs won't work
for homosexuals. It's like strolling through a house which was built by a
hack carpenter: where he put the thickest carpet is probably just where you
shouldn't walk.
Since homosexuals do in fact procreate all the time, by means that
are not always traditional (or even moral by standards other then Zeleny's)
but nonetheless effective, you might get the idea the Zeleny is as in touch
with actual reality as a subscriber to The National Enquirer. Actually,
he's just been entranced by a Cause and in the end he comes to resemble not
so much a rare and highly gifted intellectual so much as the Coyote in the
Roadrunner cartoons. And as that great philosopher Chuck Jones said:
"Who is the Coyote's enemy? Why, the Coyote.
...the only enemy the Coyote has is his overwhelming
stubbornness."
-Bruce Garrett
hami...@matai.vuw.ac.nz
>> I don't rate black shirts higher than the brown.
>But I bet you prefer white shirts, you racist denigrate, you!
So brown shirts aren't white with a lot of shit on them?
What about blue collars with pink sleeves?
>Arne Adolphson "Man, you can't join the throng 'til you
>adol...@mizar.usc.edu play your _own_ goddamn song."
>ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Lester Young
jhh
Mikhail Zeleny
bru...@access.digex.net (Bruce Garrett) writes, inter alia:
>... The general claim is that homosexual behavior
>is beneficial to homosexuals; the claim Zeleny is refuting is that zillions
>of random thoughtless junk food sexual encounters are a benefit to
>homosexuals.
>
> To cast the first in doubt what Zeleny needs is an example of a
>homosexual affecting definably heterosexual behavior (as opposed to
>behavior that is not necessarily either heterosexual or homosexual) and
>clearly benefiting from that more then they would benefit by behaving in a
>definably homosexual way. Science, notwithstanding the vigorous efforts
>of the orthodox anti-Gay set, has been unable to turn up a single
>instance where this has been clearly the case. Since Zeleny has no such
>example to provide as a counter to the first claim...
J M Keynes
Mikhail Zeleny
bru...@access.digex.net (Bruce Garrett) writes:
> zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) again...
>>>>Attention: the moral purpose of eroticism is due to the genetic makeup
>>>>of its participants, in the sense that their genetic identity enables
>>>>them to seek the fulfillment of their sexuality in the genesis of
>>>>offspring;
>>>How do you ground this teleological interpretation of human sexuality?
>>Simple: I assume that human sexuality has a moral purpose...
> Beware the hidden assumptions in a system...
Nothing is hidden.
>>...and proceed to eliminate plausible alternatives...
> Assumption: there is only One moral purpose for human sexuality to
>find.
I need no such assumption.
> Assumption: we have identified all the possible alternative
>purposes of human sexuality
Suggest another alternative.
>>...along the lines I indicated in my last response to Mike Morris. If
>>you can stomach a classical reference, I suggest the _Symposium_
>>207d-208b, which gives eloquent support for my conclusion.
> Cite...cite...cite... My methodologies are not for me to reveal
>but for you to dig out of me...
It is common among cultured people to cite classics.
> Assumption: a moral purpose for human sexuality can be discovered
>by process of elimination.
Suggest another process.
> Assumption: the methodology was applied consistently to all the
>instances.
Cite an inconsistency.
> Assumption: the heuristic is relevant to the observable human
>condition.
Prove its irrelevance.
> and so on...
Feel free to continue.
Not that you have managed to raise an objection so far.
>>>Your transition from a political transgression to an "analogous"
>>>biological offense remains to be demonstrated. You have not shown
>>>that homosexual sex has the effect of "subverting" the right and
>>>obligation which you have not established. Were such a biological
>>>right and obligation established, how would homosexual sex subvert
>>>it anymore than lending property to a friend subverts the right of
>>>property? After all, homosexual conduct, or for that matter,
>>>homosexual pair-bonding doesn't remove one's capacity to sire or
>>>bear offspring. I'm interested to know where the imperative to breed
>>>arises?
>>Sorry, but I see no way to stipulate a standard metric of merit that
>>would allow one to calculate the moral "bottom line" of a lifetime of
>>transgression and repentance.
> The merest remotest possibility of conception in some alternate
>universe of some world of All Possible Worlds is enough for Zeleny to
>calculate precisely the moral bottom line for infertile heterosexual
>couples, celibates and heterosexual couples using conception and
>thoroughly dedicated to bearing no children and place them in the "swell
>people" column; yet a preponderance or even a single instance of
>homosexuality is enough to place the parties involved in it in the
>"transgressed and not nice at all" column. Can you say Double Standard?
>Pronounce it thusly:
>
> Mikhail Zeleny
All willful refusal to bear progeny is blameworthy.
>>Moreover, your analogy with lending does not hold in light of the fact
>>that control and alienability of property constitute the very reasons
>>for advancing the doctrine of property rights.
> Adam Smith, take note...
Not an objection.
>>Note also that in lending your goods to a friend, you continue to
>>maintain your property rights therein, and so retain your rightful
>>ability to utilize them for the purposes required by Locke's
>>Fundamental Law of Nature...
> ...yet another dangling reference...this time to Locke...
Everything germane to the argument has been explained.
> Here Zeleny fails to note also that in lending your ...ah... goods
>to a homosexual lover you continue to maintain your genetic potential
>therein and so retain your ability to utilize them for the purposes
>required by Zeleny's Fundamental Law of Nature. You've said Double
>Standard once already, haven't you...?
By the same token, when stealing the property of your neighbor,
you continue to maintain your potential for charity and retain
your ability to exercise it for the purposes of reimbursing him
at a later date. How dumb.
>>...whereas by indulging in a necessarily sterile sexual activity, you
>>_ipso facto_
> Oh...god...not Ipso Facto. Anything but Ipso Facto...
Fine; make it _eo ipso_.
>>wilfully and perversely abjure and abrogate your compliance with the
>>said law, by dint of thoroughly subverting for its duration your
>>natural means for perpetuating mankind. Accordingly, the relevant
>>imperative is not meant to enjoin you to breed, but to enjoin you from
>>practicing an activity which is necessarily bound to remain unfulfilled
>>in its moral purpose.
> You might get the impression that Zeleny could well be casting into
>the pit infertile heterosexual couples, celibates, heterosexuals who
>masturbate as well as those heterosexual couples using contraception with
>these lines...but no. Raise those arguments and he will wave his All
>Possible Worlds buncombe at you.
>
> Heterosexual couplings...even among those who are by virtue of
>genetic problems genetically unable to procreate still retain a
>delightfully vague and hard to pin down ability to do just that in some
>virtual reality that homosexuals are not allowed into: if you raise the
>same virtual reality arguments he fabricates for sterile heterosexuals back
>at him with regards to homosexuals he'll stand pat on the above claim that
>homosexuality is Necessarily bound to remain sterile for ever and ever in
>all cases in all possible worlds in all possible universes long long ago in
>a galaxy far far away and if you thought the virtual world explanation for
>the morality of sterile heterosexual copulation was a little fuzzy just
>wait until he gets to the reasons why the same moral constructs won't work
>for homosexuals. It's like strolling through a house which was built by a
>hack carpenter: where he put the thickest carpet is probably just where you
>shouldn't walk.
Nomic possibility -- what a concept! If you find my earlier
explanations so hard to understand, try looking it up.
References have been given.
> Since homosexuals do in fact procreate all the time, by means that
>are not always traditional (or even moral by standards other then Zeleny's)
>but nonetheless effective, you might get the idea the Zeleny is as in touch
>with actual reality as a subscriber to The National Enquirer. Actually,
>he's just been entranced by a Cause and in the end he comes to resemble not
>so much a rare and highly gifted intellectual so much as the Coyote in the
>Roadrunner cartoons. And as that great philosopher Chuck Jones said:
>
> "Who is the Coyote's enemy? Why, the Coyote.
> ...the only enemy the Coyote has is his overwhelming
> stubbornness."
Assuming that reproduction is a moral end of eroticism, the point
is whether or not its possibility is necessarily excluded by the
nature of the erotic activity. Turkey basters offer no escape.
>-Bruce Garrett
Try being thoughtful, rather than verbose.
Mikhail Zeleny
>In article <1993Aug25....@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>In article <CC9ux...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>>>Joy to the merrry-go-round-ers.
>>Why not at least try to say something intelligent on your own account
>>instead of picking silly nits with me an Arne Adolphson? You might
>>surprise yourself and us, and find a reason to stick around.
>I have nothing novel to contribute to the substance of debates on
>homosexuality. The is/ought gap remains, it cannot be bridged by
>appeals to genes or possible world semantics (not that we are
>anti-semantic around here), there are no purposes in nature, humans
>get to / got to do all the purposing; nor is there is anything wrong
>with jerking off, so long as you don't scare the horses, even though
>it cannot get anyone pregnant unless you do some neat recovery work
>(in which case sodomy will do as well), and, since it is less immoral
>to beat dead horses than live ones, I add that even if this were error
>and on me proved, I certainly would not base a personal, social or
>political program on the perceived naughtiness of where consenting
>adults choose to spend. I don't rate black shirts higher than the
>brown.
Since you seem to be concerned with my sartorial preferences, I
aver that the color of my shirt is the color of my flag, which
in turn is the color of my dominant humour. However, I also
disclaim any conscious attempt to base a personal, much less
social or political, program on anything whatsoever done by
consenting adults, including but not limited to, willful abuse
of the minds, bodies, and spirits of themselves and their
equally deluded partners. Perhaps you could oblige me in turn
by explaining just of what sort of fabric we humans get to / got
to construct all our purposing, assuming that there are no
purposes in nature.
>--
>Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
>Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 261-0021
>University of Manitoba | Voice: (204) 474-9136
>Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
cordially, | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
John Donald Collier
>bru...@access.digex.net (Bruce Garrett) writes:
>> kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes...
>> In a way he's like a deeply closeted homosexual. He wants
>>desperately to know the joys of priests in rococo temples and evangelists
>>in stifling revival tents; other kindred souls whose language and inner
etc
>Amusing. Your writing is improving, to the point that one can follow
>your prose. The next step would be to write about something that has
>some relevance to the topic of this discussion.
Oh come now! You can come up with a more subtle diversionary tactic
than that. The relevance is patent to anyone not blinded by their own
conceit. There has to be some explanation for your persistence in
constructing Byzantine arguments in the clouds. The nature of your
response would strongly confirm the hypothesis you try to evade, if the
hypothesis were in need of confirmation.
Gene W. Smith
writes:
>Gene is essentially correct that my subsitution of Nietzsche for
>the word "this" in the sentence below was not as certain as
>I tried to pretend:
In fact, it makes little sense, and was not what I meant. Why it is
so difficult for you to grasp this is an interesting question.
>Gene asks a question about Nietzsche. It is a rhetorical question
>that to ME indicates he considers N. weak in this instance.
Absolutely. "Everything is will to power" is not the philosophy of a
person who feels strong, but of a person who feels he must become
strong, and therefore of one who feels a weakness and a lack.
>Nietzsche is not strong, a schoolyard bully is not strong, Zeleney
>is not strong. The essential equation of these things by the
>unity of the paragraph led me to conclude that N. had been
>called a bully.
Zeleny was the one being compared to the bully, and neither Borgia not
Nietzsche. You need a few lessons in invective.
John Donald Collier
>respectable philosophical journal. I do the hoary old argument you
>love so well, and you do your claim that the category of biological
>sex has been renderd obsolete by the inexorable forces of progress.
What claim of mine that biological sex has been rendered obsolete?
I claim that the biological function of sex is to produce
diversity in the genome. It is not necessary for one to engage
in sex to produce suitable vehicles for one's genes. If you
don't understand this, learn some biology.
I propose that until more philosophers learn some biology,
we find a respectable biological journal and read it.
Hardy Hulley
[Some luke-warm flame directed against Zeleny deleted - none of it was
particularly interesting or funny]
: andy
: ba...@abingdon.sun.com
: --
: "Being intelligent doesn't mean you aren't stupid."
: -- Robert Fulghum
Unfortunately, Andy, you're a bore, and for your own good, I feel compelled
to inform you of this fact. You've whined about Zeleny for long enough now,
so if you really can't stomach him, put him in your killfile - there's no
need for you to continue embarrassing yourself.
Hardy
INFIDEL
MZ:
###Kleptomania is a compulsion to steal. Assuming that your moral code
###deems theft to be blameworthy, it is likely to be based on a theory of
###possessive individualism that treats the right to property as arising
###from the effort expended by the proprietor in alienating his
###possessions from the state of nature. Thus stealing would be regarded
###as an abuse of the right one has acquired in things in virtue of the
###right one has in his person. In short, theft would constitute a
###transgression against the political nature of its victim by dint of
###subverting his right and obligation to follow Locke's Fundamental Law
###of Nature (to preserve one's own life first, and the lives of all
###mankind thereafter) through acquiring, controlling, and disposing of
###his property. Analogously, homosexual sex may be regarded as a
###transgression against the biological nature of its victim by dint of
###subverting his right and obligation to follow the same law through
###continuing both his person and mankind in his offspring.
#I take it that praiseworthiness and blameworthiness are qualities
#of individual actions. [...] Sorry, but I see no way to stipulate a
#standard metric of merit that would allow one to calculate the
#moral "bottom line" of a lifetime of transgression and repentance.
#Moreover, your analogy with lending does not hold in light of the
#fact that control and alienability of property constitute the very
#reasons for advancing the doctrine of property rights. Note also
#that in lending your goods to a friend, you continue to maintain
#your property rights therein, and so retain your rightful ability
#to utilize them for the purposes required by Locke's Fundamental
#Law of Nature; whereas by indulging in a necessarily sterile
#sexual activity, you _ipso facto_ wilfully and perversely abjure
#and abrogate your compliance with the said law, by dint of
#thoroughly subverting for its duration your natural means for
#perpetuating mankind. Accordingly, the relevant imperative is not
#meant to enjoin you to breed, but to enjoin you from practicing an
#activity which is necessarily bound to remain unfulfilled in its
#moral purpose.
Greetings Misha. This application of Locke's Fundamental Law to sexuality is
an interesting idea. I'd be further interested to see how limits may be
incorporated into your theory; specifically: would it be moral for me to
continue my person through my many partners, the one in Hong Kong,
the one in Singapore, the one in Bangkok... presuming I can support the partners
and not leave them with a catastrophic burden? Why ought one desist from
creating a "capitalist" empire of offspring? Maybe Russell's argument is
relevant here.
Looking into the crystal ball, I see some hazy kind of left-wing sexual
revolt sparked by something analogous to, "property is theft"; and various other
consequences of the politicisation of sexuality.
#cordially, | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
#mikhail | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
#zel...@husc.harvard.edu | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would answer if I had the words; but all I know for now is that the others
can get fucked.
jw
Hardy Hulley
Exhibit A:
: Your repartee is just darling, Julie, and a few good years of
: nurturing it may bring you to the point where it doesn't appear, to
: all and sundry, that you're simply standing in a puddle of your own
: urine, throwing a tantrum.
Exhibit B:
: Get a clue, indeed. Are you going to then recommend she frame it and
: hang it over the mantle, as you've done, to marvel at its
: singularity?
: andy
: ba...@abigndon.sun.com
: --
Who is this dork, and why does he insist on inflicting his under-developed
sense of humour and patent lack of taste upon us?
Hardy
Hardy
KRESSJA
>Silly boys! Arguing about what kinds of persecution are worse. At the bottom
>of all the pompous drivel being splashed across the net is a worthless topic,
>since an classification system of crimes based on subtle philosophical
>differences will only ever make a difference to pinheads such as yourselves.
You are of course correct; ingnorance is always to be prefered to thought and
discussion; philosophy is an indulgence of effete intellectuals; REAL MEN
just take their prejudices and run with them; after all, your point about the
unimportance of subtle distinctions is handily proven by fact that all those
simple moral truths are perfectly clear and obvious to all, and hence, our
disagreements are inconsequential.
-JK
P.S. Try thinking BEFORE speaking next time; Respice finem, asinus.
____________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| John Kress | "Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a |
| | rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks." |
| | -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
|________________|___________________________________________________________|