Bigots Target

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 6:31:55 PM2/27/95
to
Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

: This thread persists primarily as a means for Bruce Garrett to call
: me a Nazi sympathizer because of my view that homosexual acts are
: morally wrong, and for me to expose the tawdry and mawkish basis of
: his compulsive attempts to justify his sexuality to all and sundry.

A lie. Many people can manage to believe that homosexual acts are
morally wrong without going over the line into hate speech. It is the
fact that you hate, and lie about the fact that you hate, and make it
obvious that you lie about the fact that you hate, and keep repeating
this loop, which makes the Nazi comparison go.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Feb 28, 1995, 1:30:26 AM2/28/95
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950227182002.24423A-100000@lab1>
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

:Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
to his outspoken sexual perversion. There still remains a question of
what constitutes hate speech. I explicitly repudiate acts of violence
and legal persecution aiming to censure acts that occur in private
between consenting adults. Nevertheless, Mr Smith elects to classify
my moral opposition to buggery on par with Hitler's persecution of the
alleged Untermenschen. Would he be acting as irrationally without the
incentive of his deviant sensibilities?

cordially, don't
mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Feb 28, 1995, 10:05:32 PM2/28/95
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950227174233.23476B@lab1>
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

: On Sun, 26 Feb 1995 BPB...@husc.harvard.edu wrote:

:: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
::: The refractory homosexual is a pathetic freak of
::: nature who, whenever left to his own tawdry devices, acts as a vivid
::: reminder of the misery concomitant with willful deviance from the
::: moral ends of mankind.

GWS:
: Note, once again, that this is hate speech, and shows yet again that the
: comparison of Zeleny with the Nazis is quite apt. Note also that Zeleny
: (in a manner worthy of any Nazi, incidentally) thinks that to be a "freak
: of nature" is to be worthy of contempt; so in effect he is pouring hatred
: and contempt not just on homosexuals, but also on people with all the
: variety of ills that can or might cause them to be termed "freaks of
: nature" by spiteful homunculi of Zeleny's kind.

On the contrary, the above would apply only to people who deliberately
cultivate and proudly exhibit their diseases. A man who strives to
overcome his unwholesome inclinations merits the highest praise. But
a refractory homosexual is no different from a refractory coprophage.

GWS:
: You might also take note that in calling homosexuals "freaks of nature",
: he is contradicting the Robertsonesque "lifestyle choice" rhetoric he at
: times employs elsewhere. In his utter intellectual dishonesty, he finds
: any stick which is handy at the time a good enough one to beat homosexuals
: with.

Observe that I characterized refractory homosexuality as a willful
deviance. Inclination is mostly determined by involuntary factors;
acting upon it is invariably a matter of free choice. Not that I
would expect you to exercise your reading comprehension skills in
the midst of a self-justificatory conniption fit.

MZ:
::: Consider that the passage I have cited is part of Kant's discussion of
::: sodomy in _The Metaphysics of Morals_. Read the book.

BP:
:: You ignored my statement as usual and refused to answer my concerns.
:: If I wanted to read Kant I would be on alt.deadguy.Kant. Your logic,
:: though couched prettily, is bunk. Try again, this time less personal
:: attacks and a little INFORMATION would get you further.

GWS:
: It doesn't matter in any case. If you actually try to argue on the basis
: of Kant, as I once did, he backpedles at once, he "holds no brief for the
: Konigsburg wanker." Zeleny is even more of a pretentious fraud than most
: people realize, and that is saying a lot.

The high point of your argument "on the basis of Kant" was running a
thread dedicated to my putatively putrid pink butthole and threatening
to sabotage my career prospects. You are a bad sport, Mr Smith, but
that is to be expected. Every outburst of self-serving flatulence
emitted by your net persona goes a long way towards confirming the
timeless stereotype of the whining, scheming, hysterical rimadonna.
You are a worthy representative of your kind. Keep up the good work.

Gary Phillips

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 6:11:05 AM3/2/95
to
Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

: In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition


: to his outspoken sexual perversion. There still remains a question of
: what constitutes hate speech. I explicitly repudiate acts of violence
: and legal persecution aiming to censure acts that occur in private
: between consenting adults. Nevertheless, Mr Smith elects to classify
: my moral opposition to buggery on par with Hitler's persecution of the
: alleged Untermenschen. Would he be acting as irrationally without the
: incentive of his deviant sensibilities?

Michael,
How can you reconcile a right to "private acts between consenting
[homosexual] adults with your alleged "moral" opposition to homosexual
sexual engagements (let's ignore the fact that "buggery" is something
that heterosexuals engage in at a much higher rate than gay people do)?
--
Gary Phillips
orp...@kaiwan.com
Laguna Beach, CA

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 3:28:40 PM3/2/95
to
In article <3j4n8s$2...@news.bu.edu> ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:

: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) sez that since our
: parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:

:: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
:: proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:: your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.

: You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.

Try to conceive a world wherein every dioecious creature deliberately
chooses essentially sterile forms of intercourse on each occasion of
sexual contact. Since such creatures must owe their provenance to an
instance of fertile sexual contact, a world operating in accordance
with the stated principle is logically impossible.

The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
exceptions, he is acting immorally.

Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.

: --
: Brian Kane~~~Astroboy~~~kane@{buast1,bu-ast,buast7,protostar}.bu.edu
: "The altar boy's on fire!" Mary Lorson _Bring It Down_ (1993)
: "Those dudes up in the UFO described the truth as a yellow lifeboat"

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 9:00:34 PM3/2/95
to
ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:

: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

:: ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:

::: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) sez that since our
::: parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:

:::: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:::: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
:::: proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:::: your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.

::: You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.

:: Try to conceive a world wherein every dioecious creature deliberately
:: chooses essentially sterile forms of intercourse on each occasion of
:: sexual contact.

: Would you care to calculate the probability of this happening?

Consideration of probability is irrelevant because moral obligations
cannot be delegated. Otherwise you could excuse yourself from the
performance of any duty, arguing that a society of predominantly
conscientious men could -- and does -- suffer and sustain a small
proportion of parasites.

:: Since such creatures must owe their provenance to an


:: instance of fertile sexual contact,

: Morality isn't about acting because of an "owing" to the events of the
: past---it's about acting out of a sense of *present* respect for absolute
: notions of "property", "property" being any number of things including life,
: volition, ideas, and material possessions. In short, there is no temporal
: notion to morality.

Life, volition, and ideas are wholly dissimilar from any material
possessions, in arising and attaching to their owners irrespectively of
any social conventions, and in being physically inalienable therefrom.
Furthermore, morality can and does arise before and independently of the
notion of material ownership, or any other social institution whatsoever,
though this fact may be difficult to grasp for someone happily inured to
the cupidity and rapaciousness of the Anglo-American tradition. And if
we incurred no moral obligation to the events of the past, retributive
justice would be nothing but a hollow farce.

:: a world operating in accordance


:: with the stated principle is logically impossible.

: Exactly. So the chance of this happening is zero. Thus there is
: no moral imperative for everyone to reproduce.

Surely if there is a non-negative probability of an average primate
deciding to dedicate the rest of his days to sterile pursuits, there is
ipso facto a slight yet non-negative probability of the rest of his peers
deciding to follow suit. But since the universality of moral obligation
rules out all probabilistic consideration, there is no need for you to
concern yourself with a subject you evidently know nothing about.

:: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way


:: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
:: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
:: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex.

: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)

Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
Not so with Brian and Bruce.

:: But in choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself


:: as an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
:: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
:: moral condition of his own genesis.

: Nonsense. There are no moral conditions of being. Only moral actions.

Somebody had to take a moral responsibility for his genesis, in a moral
action that constituted its moral condition.

:: Since morality admits of no exceptions, he is acting immorally.

: No, since the premise is *NOT* true (the premise being that
: there is a moral imperative for each individual to reproduce),
: this doe *NOT* follow.

In other words, you are pleading for exceptions to the common rule.

:: Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually


:: so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.

: As I said, your notion of causality is all mixed up.

Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative.

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 9:23:42 PM3/2/95
to
On 28 Feb 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:

> How terribly nice for you to figure out a convoluted way of saying
> that vulgar moral rules do not apply to your extraordinary kind.

Gosh--Mikhail Zeleny, Man of the People and all around regular guy. Of
course, as we shall see, Zeleny violates his own moral rules all the time.

> I never assume a moral claim, Grasshopper -- I argue for it.
> Buggering your Adams House roommate is immoral because it is
> tantamount to willfully relinquishing your responsibility for
> the future generations to other couples, on other occasions,
> anywhere but the place where you happen to be at the moment.

Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
"violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
pervert.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 9:32:27 PM3/2/95
to
On 28 Feb 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950227182002.24423A-100000@lab1>
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

> In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
> to his outspoken sexual perversion.

Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
would be compelled to call sexual perversion.

So knock off the "perversion" claims, Pervert.

Caitlin Mackay Shaw

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 10:03:44 PM3/2/95
to
In article <3j59po$d...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
>so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.

By this line of reasoning, it is immoral for a woman to resist being
raped by a man, because her mother had sex with a man once.

See the problem? Simply because a thing can be good done *once* does
not mean it must be done *at all times*. For instance, Michael, if your
parents had spent all their time typing on UseNet you never would have
been born; therefore, it is immoral for you to spend *any* time at all,
ever, on UseNet.

As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
artificial insemination.

Caitlin
--
___-----______________________________________________________________-----___
____---____________-- Caitlin Shaw <cms...@princeton.edu> --___________---____
_____-_____________"There is no /one true way/." --M. Lackey____________-_____

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 10:43:12 PM3/2/95
to
Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
means of birth control. Since we have been over this ground many times
before, I surmise that the deterioration of your immune system under a
perpetual ingress of foreign proteins has gravely taxed and damaged your
modest cognitive faculties. One often hears of psychosomatic ailments --
but you afford a living example of a mind irremediably corrupted by
abject bodily degradation.

Gary Phillips

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 5:55:30 AM3/3/95
to
: In addition to your argument being intrinsically absurd (logically)
: and beside the fact that you have unjustifiably conflated the issues of
: propagation and sexuality beyond merit, your argument makes several
: unwarranted practical assumptions and smacks of misogyny upon
: further analysis.
: You really have to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, including
: your own, by stating that you are not a consequentialist in this matter.
: The reality is that you can't *afford* to be a consequentialist because,
: when taken on consequentialist grounds, your argument falls apart even
: more quickly than it does on logical grounds alone, and you know this.
: The world is a limited space with limited resources within which we are
: irremediably bound. How "rational" and "responsible" is it to presume
: unlimited space and resources when formulating your propagational sexual
: ethic? The impracticality of your argument actually highlights and informs
: its logical absurdity. So long as you refuse to consider the consequences,
: you can pretend that you are being moral. But what good is a morality
: that is inherently incapable of being applied in the real world? How
: "logical" is it? I'll answer for you: It is, in a word, vacuous, both in
: terms of its "good" and in terms of its logic.

> Look out, folks -- here comes the hoary cliche' of buggery as Higher
> Malthusianism! Never mind that the position I had expounded contains
> nothing that would mandate indiscriminate reproduction, or prohibit
> responsible contraception.

Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile" and
"counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
"responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
parties involved.
Your position also mandates indiscriminate reproduction. If any
"essentially sterile" or "contrapurposive" sexual act is excluded as a
morally acceptable sexual option then, ipso facto, the only acceptable
sexual option is one which will lead to conception -- every time. Since
sexual abstinence is "essentially sterile" and "contrapurposive" to the
"natural ends" of sexuality, we cannot choose abstinence as a morally
acceptable option either. Therefore, every time the opportunity for a
successful act of reproduction presents itself, we are duty-bound to perform
it, if we accept your position. Ergo propter ita est.
Ready to concede? ;-)

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 3:39:01 PM3/3/95
to
In article <3j4949$6...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:

: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

I do not believe that the government has the right to punish immoral
acts that occur between consenting adults. There is not enough
certainty in our moral reasoning to countenance the legislation of
morality.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 3:41:45 PM3/3/95
to
In article <3j6sj2$s...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:

GP:
::: In addition to your argument being intrinsically absurd (logically)


::: and beside the fact that you have unjustifiably conflated the issues of
::: propagation and sexuality beyond merit, your argument makes several
::: unwarranted practical assumptions and smacks of misogyny upon
::: further analysis.
::: You really have to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, including
::: your own, by stating that you are not a consequentialist in this matter.
::: The reality is that you can't *afford* to be a consequentialist because,
::: when taken on consequentialist grounds, your argument falls apart even
::: more quickly than it does on logical grounds alone, and you know this.
::: The world is a limited space with limited resources within which we are
::: irremediably bound. How "rational" and "responsible" is it to presume
::: unlimited space and resources when formulating your propagational sexual
::: ethic? The impracticality of your argument actually highlights and informs
::: its logical absurdity. So long as you refuse to consider the consequences,
::: you can pretend that you are being moral. But what good is a morality
::: that is inherently incapable of being applied in the real world? How
::: "logical" is it? I'll answer for you: It is, in a word, vacuous, both in
::: terms of its "good" and in terms of its logic.

MZ:
:: Look out, folks -- here comes the hoary cliche' of buggery as Higher


:: Malthusianism! Never mind that the position I had expounded contains
:: nothing that would mandate indiscriminate reproduction, or prohibit
:: responsible contraception.

GP:
: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible


: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
: parties involved.

I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.

: Your position also mandates indiscriminate reproduction. If any


: "essentially sterile" or "contrapurposive" sexual act is excluded as a
: morally acceptable sexual option then, ipso facto, the only acceptable
: sexual option is one which will lead to conception -- every time. Since
: sexual abstinence is "essentially sterile" and "contrapurposive" to the
: "natural ends" of sexuality, we cannot choose abstinence as a morally
: acceptable option either. Therefore, every time the opportunity for a
: successful act of reproduction presents itself, we are duty-bound to perform
: it, if we accept your position. Ergo propter ita est.

Consider the difference between the compliance conditions of the
imperatives "Do not do X unless it can result in Y" and "Do X only if
it will result in Y." They diverge even if one assumes with Aristotle
that whatever is not explicitly permitted is ipso facto forbidden, and
with Schiller -- that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is ipso
facto permitted.

: Ready to concede? ;-)

You can do better than this.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 3:56:30 PM3/3/95
to
In article <1995Mar3.0...@Princeton.EDU>
cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:

: In article <3j59po$d...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
:: so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.

: By this line of reasoning, it is immoral for a woman to resist being
: raped by a man, because her mother had sex with a man once.

There is a great deal of confusion in this analogy. Resistance to
illegitimate (not antecedently and implicitly consented to) coercion
is legitimate regardless of the aims of your opponent. And generally
speaking, you are ignoring the difference between being obligated to
avoid doing X unless it can result in Y, and incurring an obligation
to do X if and only if it can result in Y.

: See the problem? Simply because a thing can be good done *once* does


: not mean it must be done *at all times*. For instance, Michael, if your
: parents had spent all their time typing on UseNet you never would have
: been born; therefore, it is immoral for you to spend *any* time at all,
: ever, on UseNet.

I already explained the difference between fucking and net-surfing to
another poster. Feel free to look into it on your own time.

: As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
: artificial insemination.

Just like you fail to take into account the difference between sexual
intercourse and a medical procedure.

Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 8:05:39 PM3/3/95
to
Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way


: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
: exceptions, he is acting immorally.


That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.

There are a number of problems with the CI as a basis for ethics; the
most central is that it is applicable to matters we consider nonmoral
(the choice of a trade) and inapplicable to matters we consider moral
(decieving the stalker, as mentioned before). Also, the deduction of the
maxim from circumstance always presumes the question, as above demonstrated.

In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
disallowed.

But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
light on Kant.


Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 4, 1995, 12:41:00 AM3/4/95
to
In article <keoD4w...@netcom.com>
k...@netcom.com (Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet) writes:

: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

:: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
:: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
:: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
:: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
:: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
:: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
:: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
:: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
:: exceptions, he is acting immorally.

: That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
: nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
: one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
: if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
: Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
: principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.

You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
first part of the Groundwork for more details.

: There are a number of problems with the CI as a basis for ethics; the

: most central is that it is applicable to matters we consider nonmoral
: (the choice of a trade) and inapplicable to matters we consider moral
: (decieving the stalker, as mentioned before). Also, the deduction of the
: maxim from circumstance always presumes the question, as above demonstrated.

The first item is grounded in a common misunderstanding -- witness
Russell's complaint that the CI forbids all competition for scarce
resources. The reason people impute this idiocy to Kant, is because
they are too lazy to read the Metaphysics of Rights. The application
of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an antecedent
determination of a rational social order. You may choose a trade iff
the general maxim of your choice is consistent with the functioning of
such order. Here something needs to be said about relating the utopian
Kingdom of Ends to the status quo -- but that is a subject for another
sermon. As for deceiving the stalker, I think that coercion vitiates
communication -- in so far as he succeeds in unjustly forcing you to
speak, he forfeits his right to a true answer; and in so far as you
remain free not to answer, you have a right and a duty not to do so.

: In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
: disallowed.

You have not shown that.

: But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
: light on Kant.

On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
just punishment for buggery.

Richard Foy

unread,
Mar 4, 1995, 11:33:06 AM3/4/95
to
In article <3j7uu9$7...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,

Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
>single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
>It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
>interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
>than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
>please help me out here.

I will try though I am busting in here.

Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.

--
"The anti-Establishment Establishment is like the Internet, for,
by definition, it has no leaders, no membership directory and no
central philosophy." --Los Angeles Times December 4, 1994

Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/home.html

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 4, 1995, 2:23:06 PM3/4/95
to
In article <rfoyD4x...@netcom.com>
rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:

: In article <3j7uu9$7...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:

:: I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:: single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:: It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:: interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:: than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:: please help me out here.

: I will try though I am busting in here.

Your intervention is welcome.

: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no


: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.

What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?

: --

: "The anti-Establishment Establishment is like the Internet, for,
: by definition, it has no leaders, no membership directory and no
: central philosophy." --Los Angeles Times December 4, 1994
:
: Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/home.html

cordially, don't

Caitlin Mackay Shaw

unread,
Mar 4, 1995, 3:42:50 PM3/4/95
to
In article <3j7vpu$h...@saba.info.ucla.edu>

Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
or immoral for them to have sex?

I say it's amoral -- completely irrelevent to the question of the
morality of reproduction. This is because **sex and procreation are not
intrinsically linked** in this example. For the above women, sex has as
much to do with children as music does.

Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet

unread,
Mar 5, 1995, 1:21:42 AM3/5/95
to
Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

: : That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual

: : nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
: : one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
: : if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
: : Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
: : principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.

: You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
: determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
: agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
: a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
: first part of the Groundwork for more details.

This exemplifies my suspicion of this kind of normative ethics. If,
frankly, I'm unable to reliably act ethically without having read the
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ethical action is a
near-impossibility for most.

I do intend to read the Groundwork, and perhaps reread SELECTIONS of the
Metaphysic itself (I'm very busy, I work full time and I stopped studying
philosophy when I left college...), but the nature of this discussion has
gone to reinforce my moral intuitionism; it is evident that normative
ethics are always held up to an extant moral intuition which is the
actual foundation for moral choice.

: : In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
: : disallowed.

: You have not shown that.

Perhaps I will essay such a demonstration. But as a prelude to it, I
offer that the ontology of "sexual powers" exceeds the boundaries of
practical knowledge, and is in fact a teleological claim. Otherwise, I
agree that I have not shown that. I suggested it, and I suggest it again.

: : But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
: : light on Kant.

: On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
: hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
: just punishment for buggery.

Let's be grateful for small wonders.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 5, 1995, 4:05:04 AM3/5/95
to
In article <keoD4y...@netcom.com>
k...@netcom.com (Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet) writes:

: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

::: That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
::: nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
::: one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
::: if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
::: Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
::: principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.

:: You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
:: determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
:: agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
:: a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
:: first part of the Groundwork for more details.

: This exemplifies my suspicion of this kind of normative ethics. If,
: frankly, I'm unable to reliably act ethically without having read the
: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ethical action is a
: near-impossibility for most.

This is silly. "If, frankly, I'm unable to reliably count my change
and balance my checkbook without having studied arithmetic, economical
action is a near-impossibility for most." I do this in-between writing
one book, editing two other books, organizing a non-profit foundation
presently charged with typesetting two mathematical journals, taking
care of a dozen graduate course incompletes, maintaining three Italian
motorcycles, bringing up a 100 pound puppy, and having a private life.
So please forgive me if I make a textual reference to a classic source
in lieu of proffering an extended explanation of elementary matters to
someone who appears capable of doing her own research.

: I do intend to read the Groundwork, and perhaps reread SELECTIONS of the

: Metaphysic itself (I'm very busy, I work full time and I stopped studying
: philosophy when I left college...), but the nature of this discussion has
: gone to reinforce my moral intuitionism; it is evident that normative
: ethics are always held up to an extant moral intuition which is the
: actual foundation for moral choice.

No, it is not. Certainly nothing that transpired in this discussion
constitutes evidence supporting your claim.

::: In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
::: disallowed.

:: You have not shown that.

: Perhaps I will essay such a demonstration. But as a prelude to it, I
: offer that the ontology of "sexual powers" exceeds the boundaries of
: practical knowledge, and is in fact a teleological claim. Otherwise, I
: agree that I have not shown that. I suggested it, and I suggest it again.

So what? Teleology and intentionality are regarded as irreducible to
efficient causation and indispensable to scientific explanation by some
of the best modern thinkers in evolutionary biology and philosophy of
mind. That makes ethics dependent on science. I see no harm and much
good in this situation, especially since the reciprocal dependence has
long been recognized by many scientists.

::: But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
::: light on Kant.

:: On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
:: hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
:: just punishment for buggery.

: Let's be grateful for small wonders.

Civil discourse is one among many.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 5, 1995, 4:36:13 AM3/5/95
to
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

: On 28 Feb 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:

:: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

:: In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
:: to his outspoken sexual perversion.

: Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
: you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
: would be compelled to call sexual perversion.

You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
for your pathetic intellectual handicap.

: So knock off the "perversion" claims, Pervert.

So sorry, I forgot my folklore --

"The inverts
(a word preferred by homosexuals to perverts)
attempt to win converts."

Have it your own way. Repeatedly.

: --


: Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
: gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu

Isn't it about time for you to invite me to fuck my ass with broken
glass? Isn't it funny how even a screaming rimadonna will use anal
penetration of a man as a term for abject humiliation?

Richard Foy

unread,
Mar 5, 1995, 8:22:26 AM3/5/95
to
In article <3jaemq$o...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,

Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>: I will try though I am busting in here.
>
>Your intervention is welcome.

Thanks.

>
>: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
>: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
>: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
>: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
>: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
>
>What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?

Actually I probably don't "prefer" other forms. I too tend to fool
myself that intellectual discussion can be effective on topics such
as the above.

However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that
the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
the emotional aspects.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 5, 1995, 2:31:39 PM3/5/95
to
In article <rfoyD4y...@netcom.com> rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:

: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:

::: I will try though I am busting in here.

:: Your intervention is welcome.

: Thanks.

::: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
::: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
::: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
::: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
::: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.

:: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?

: Actually I probably don't "prefer" other forms. I too tend to fool
: myself that intellectual discussion can be effective on topics such
: as the above.

If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
Ideas work very well indeed.

: However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that


: the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
: rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
: the emotional aspects.

Are desires considered to be emotions, or are they prior thereto?
Do you ever desire unwarranted sudden demise of your neighbor?
If so, what do you do about it?

Casey O'Matt Casey Matlock

unread,
Mar 5, 1995, 10:27:23 PM3/5/95
to
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> writes:

>>>Presumably, it is the same right that enables the corrections officers
>>>to deny their charges their right to nose jobs and liposuction at the
>>>taxpayers' expense. For that matter, if incarceration is to serve the
>>>purposes of retributive justice, there is no reason to grant them such
>>>privileges quite regardless of who is paying for them.

I would like to offer up my noncontreversial response to the above statement.
Be advised that corrections officers make no decicions in regard to medication
or matters concerning medical pro lems regarding inmates. This is entirely up
to administration and medical staff. Thank you.

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 1:15:10 AM3/6/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:

>: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)

>Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
>must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
>Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
>more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
>Not so with Brian and Bruce.

Alas, you have just contradicted yourself.

I requote your words:

"So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
moral deliberation."

And to be even clearer:

"Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."

Anal sex is an essentially non-fertile sex act, whether between male and
male, male and female, or even female and female. Because of this, and since,
if your parents had decided to indulge in this instead of PiV sex at the
moment of your conception (*), by your own words *all* anal sex must be
immoral.

Anal sex is a sexual act unto itself, just like oral sex or mutual
masturbation. They cannot be considered "foreplay" if they lead to (male)
orgasm.

By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed) are acting "immorally" if Bruce
ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.

Care to explain why you contradicted yourself, Zeleny ?

- Tony Q.

(*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"A cripple taught me how to dance, a blind man taught me how to see.
A fallen angel taught me how to fly, and a prisoner taught me to be free."
- Simple Image.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 3:34:07 AM3/6/95
to
In article <3je99e$l...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:

::: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)

:: Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
:: must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
:: Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
:: more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
:: Not so with Brian and Bruce.

: Alas, you have just contradicted yourself.

Have I?

: I requote your words:


:
: "So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
: to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
: of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
: in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
: preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
: moral deliberation."
:
: And to be even clearer:
:
: "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."

I stand by that claim.

: Anal sex is an essentially non-fertile sex act, whether between male and


: male, male and female, or even female and female. Because of this, and since,
: if your parents had decided to indulge in this instead of PiV sex at the
: moment of your conception (*), by your own words *all* anal sex must be
: immoral.

Correct -- anal sex being identified with ejaculation in the anus.

: Anal sex is a sexual act unto itself, just like oral sex or mutual


: masturbation. They cannot be considered "foreplay" if they lead to (male)
: orgasm.

Lovely. Erin instructs me to inquire whether or not such acts can be
considered foreplay if they lead to female orgasm only.

: By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might


: be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed) are acting "immorally" if Bruce
: ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.

Correct -- though that would be Boris and Natasha, my culturally
challenged antipodean friend. But consider how much more depraved
it would have been to choose a partner in a way that denied one the
option of rectifying his erroneous choice of sexual venue.

: Care to explain why you contradicted yourself, Zeleny ?

What contradiction do you have in mind? You have just described the
standard Jewish account of what constitutes permissible sex between
man and wife -- it does not matter where you get started, as long as
you finish in the right place. What are you, some kind of Judeophobe?

: - Tony Q.


:
: (*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
: used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
: it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.

I am getting confused -- are you suggesting that anal sex is not
essentially sterile after all? Have you been making yourself
available for experiments to that end?

Erin Y. Zhu

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 4:00:13 AM3/6/95
to

> By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
>be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed)

You know, Tony, normally I prefer to stay out of Michael's various
Usenet forays, since I like to give my partner the freedom to do his
own thinking, writing, and getting in and out of verbal tangles, but
somehow some people manage to get a little too far in the heat of, ah,
shall we say, "verbal engagements". Now it's very well and dandy to
have philosophical differences with Michael; indeed it would be rather
surprising if one did not, given the number of his philosophical and
other convictions. But I do not appreciate my bed, and my own person,
being gratuitiously dragged bodily into a discussion just so you could
vent a bit of your no-doubt well-stocked spleen.

>are acting "immorally" if Bruce ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.

Just for the record, Michael ejaculates where he pleases, and his partner
likes to be accomodating.

>- Tony Q.

> (*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
>used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
>it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.

You are doing far too good a job of bringing to mind the last resorts
of a drowning man. I recommend taking it easy on those straws.

--Erin

Richard Foy

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 2:12:49 PM3/6/95
to
In article <3jd3ir$8...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,

Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <rfoyD4y...@netcom.com> rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
>rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
>motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
>Ideas work very well indeed.

I probably agree with what you are saying, but I am not exacly sure
the type of thing you mean.

>
>: However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that
>: the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
>: rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
>: the emotional aspects.
>
>Are desires considered to be emotions, or are they prior thereto?
>Do you ever desire unwarranted sudden demise of your neighbor?
>If so, what do you do about it?

I would say that desires and emotions are often very clsoely
connected. However, the way I would use them, and considering your
example, I would say that desires are a result of emotions.

In your example, it would seem to me that your "desire" to kill your
neighbor results from some emotion, perhaps you are "angry" at him
because he makes too much noise, or you are "afraid" of him becasue
he has threatened you, or you "lust" for his wife and want him out of
the way.
--
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong." --Voltaire


Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/bkpo.html

dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 4:05:30 PM3/6/95
to
Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: In article <rfoyD4x...@netcom.com>
: rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
: : Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no

: : matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
: : intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
: : matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
: : argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.

: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?

Sorry, but you do not discuss this in any sort of cordial manner.
You may be dispassionate, but it is a cold, incaring, and unthinking
dispassion that marks your words.

: cordially,

I don't see it. I just don't.

: don't
: tread
: on
: me

Step out of the way of other peoples *lives* and you will not be
tread upon. It has always amazed me that some people have the
arrogance to claim that what someone else does, in their own life,
is somehow an imposition upon theirs -- even when it is clear that
it is not.

Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 6:27:55 PM3/6/95
to
In article <3jfteq$q...@fred.uswnvg.com> dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com () writes:

: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

:: rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:

::: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
::: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
::: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
::: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
::: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.

:: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?

: Sorry, but you do not discuss this in any sort of cordial manner.
: You may be dispassionate, but it is a cold, incaring, and unthinking
: dispassion that marks your words.

Care and warmth are imperfect duties.

:: cordially,

Nevertheless, the words proceed straight from the heart.

: I don't see it. I just don't.

:: don't
:: tread
:: on
:: me

To those unmindful of historical precedent, I counsel careful
attention to the distinction between a request and a warning.

: Step out of the way of other peoples *lives* and you will not be


: tread upon. It has always amazed me that some people have the
: arrogance to claim that what someone else does, in their own life,
: is somehow an imposition upon theirs -- even when it is clear that
: it is not.

"No man is an island."

: Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com

Rob Heyes

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 8:11:38 PM3/6/95
to
In article <3jeiut$8...@saba.info.ucla.edu>

z...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Erin Y. Zhu) writes:
> other convictions. But I do not appreciate my bed, and my own person,
> being gratuitiously dragged bodily into a discussion just so you could
> vent a bit of your no-doubt well-stocked spleen.

Then kindly instruct Michael that we do not appreciate our beds and our own
persons being dragged into a discussion so that he can promulgate his
unpleasant 'philosophy'.


Rob
--
____
\ / Even in civilized mankind faint traces of monogamous
\/ instinct can be perceived Bertrand Russell

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 8:32:28 PM3/6/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

>: Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
>: "violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
>: conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
>: sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
>: pervert.

>Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
>means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
>natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
>pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
>means of birth control.

Oh dear, it appears you have contradicted your own arguments yet *again*.

I quote:

"If your action is to proceed according to universal laws of your own
legislation, it cannot differ in kind from the laws that can arise uniformly
in a society of such free agents. (This is what Kant means by his transition
to the formula of the Kingdom of Ends.) Universal legislation of the maxim
of homosexual intercourse is incompatible with the genesis of men, and
therefore incompatible with human agency."

Since universal legislation of contraception would reduce the birth rate
to well below replacement levels, it is therefore incompatible with the
genesis of mankind, and therefore incompatible with human agency.

Since you claim that homosexuality is immoral on the individual level
because universal homosexuality is incompatible with the survival of mankind,
I must conclude that contraceptive sex is immoral because univeral
contraceptive sex is incompatible with the survival of mankind.

Another quote:

"If morality is universal, whatever is *generally* morally incumbent
upon anyone, is ipso facto incumbent upon everyone. Ii particular, if
the action X is required as the condition of your existence, you are
not in a position to delegate that type of action to anyone else."

Were you the result of a ruptured condom ? If not then non-contraceptive
sex was required as a condition of your existence, and therefore you are
not in a position to delegate it to anyone else. Ergo, Zeleny using
contraception is Zeleny acting immorally by his own logic.

And *another* quote:

"The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
exceptions, he is acting immorally."

By using contraception, Zeleny, you willfully construe yourself as an
anomoly to the principle in accordance with which such generative action
would occur (defining generative action as that which leads to a level of
reproduction sufficient for survival of humanity), and therefore as a
deliberate exception to the moral condition of your own genesis. Since
morality admits of no exceptions, you would be acting immorally."

Please explain why you appear to be contradicting yourself *again*,
Zeleny.

- Tony Q.

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 8:55:30 PM3/6/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
>antecedent determination of a rational social order.

Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?

>You may choose a trade iff the general maxim of your choice is consistent
>with the functioning of such order.

So, the general maxim for someone choosing to be a student is not "be
a student" but "exercise free choice as to your occupation", given that
this has been shown to be empirically compatible with a functioning
economy.

I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive
sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.

It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 9:14:53 PM3/6/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:

>: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
>: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
>: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
>: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
>: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
>: parties involved.

:I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
:refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
:familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
:millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
:Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
:to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
:unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
:need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
:mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
:other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.

Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 1:48:41 AM3/7/95
to
In article <1995Mar4.2...@Princeton.EDU>
cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:

: In article <3j7vpu$h...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: In article <1995Mar3.0...@Princeton.EDU>
:: cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:

::: As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
::: artificial insemination.

:: Just like you fail to take into account the difference between sexual
:: intercourse and a medical procedure.

: Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
: Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
: or immoral for them to have sex?

Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.

: I say it's amoral -- completely irrelevent to the question of the


: morality of reproduction. This is because **sex and procreation are not
: intrinsically linked** in this example. For the above women, sex has as
: much to do with children as music does.

Can you get pregnant by listening to the Apassionata?

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 6:04:52 AM3/7/95
to
In article <3jgfit$4...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:

::: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
::: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
::: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
::: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
::: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
::: parties involved.

:: I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:: single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:: It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:: interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:: than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:: please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
:: refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
:: familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
:: millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
:: Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
:: to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
:: unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
:: need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
:: mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
:: other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.

: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.

There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.

Rod Swift

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 9:09:41 AM3/7/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.

>There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
>exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.

Translation: I can't answer Tony Quirke, so I'll just add a cute
little cop out at the end of this whole message.

Rod
--
| ... ..... | be...@fohnix.metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |

dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 1:27:36 PM3/7/95
to
Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

: In article <3je99e$l...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: : And to be even clearer:
: :
: : "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."

: I stand by that claim.

MIchael stands there, comforted by his belief, as many, many poeple
who have committed non-fertile sex acts point, laugh and go back to
their lives, secure in the knowlege that his judgement of morality
doesn't apply to them.


Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 1:27:50 AM3/8/95
to
On 5 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

> : Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
> : you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
> : would be compelled to call sexual perversion.

> You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
> simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
> and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
> for your pathetic intellectual handicap.

You are either too fatuous to notice I was *not* talking about conception,
but about precisely the opposite--or you are lying, which would not be
remarkable.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 1:29:02 AM3/8/95
to
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

Consider that the average actual failure rate of the Pill is 15% per
couple-year. Taking the average generation gap to be 25 years leaves
us with more than adequate margin for a positive population growth.

: Another quote:


:
: "If morality is universal, whatever is *generally* morally incumbent
: upon anyone, is ipso facto incumbent upon everyone. Ii particular, if
: the action X is required as the condition of your existence, you are
: not in a position to delegate that type of action to anyone else."
:
: Were you the result of a ruptured condom ? If not then non-contraceptive
: sex was required as a condition of your existence, and therefore you are
: not in a position to delegate it to anyone else. Ergo, Zeleny using
: contraception is Zeleny acting immorally by his own logic.

Accidents do not enter into the individuation of essences. All men
are conceived as a result of a fertile sex act, regardless of the
peculiar aspects of its configuration. There is no duty to imitate
the particular conditions of your provenance implicit in the general
duty to recapitulate its possibility in all actions of the same type.

: And *another* quote:


:
: "The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
: exceptions, he is acting immorally."
:
: By using contraception, Zeleny, you willfully construe yourself as an
: anomoly to the principle in accordance with which such generative action
: would occur (defining generative action as that which leads to a level of
: reproduction sufficient for survival of humanity), and therefore as a
: deliberate exception to the moral condition of your own genesis. Since
: morality admits of no exceptions, you would be acting immorally."

Not good enough. See above.

: Please explain why you appear to be contradicting yourself *again*,
: Zeleny.

As Plato would gladly tell you, appearances are all in your head.

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 1:40:13 AM3/8/95
to
On 5 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

> : Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
> : you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
> : would be compelled to call sexual perversion.

> You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
> simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
> and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
> for your pathetic intellectual handicap.

Oops--I need new glasses. The man said "contraception". Of course, the
difference in this respect makes Zeleny more of a pervert, not less. In
the case of what Zeleny is pleased to call "buggery" (of any kind,
including heterosexual) one is unlikely to produce unintended offspring.
In the case of PIV sexual intercourse, in many cases one is quite likely.
Hence, the interference with conception involved in using for instance a
condom is far more consequential, and if this is what determines
perversion, far more perverted. Of course, it gets really interesting
when you consider that a male homosexual sex act can be undertaken with
the intent (often successful, in these cases) of producing offspring.

By the way, I notice you didn't answer my question about sex
with girls under eighteen. You ever do that, Pervert? What is
your profound analysis of it?

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 1:53:16 AM3/8/95
to
On 3 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
> Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

> : Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
> : "violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
> : conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
> : sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
> : pervert.

> Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
> means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
> natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
> pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
> means of birth control.

Interesting. At what probability of conception does sex using
contraceptive devices suddenly become perverse--and where is your
philosophical argument that p=0.001, say, is that point? Or is there a
perversion function of Perv(p), which returns 0 perversion when p=1, and
drops continuously to complete perversion Perv(0)=1 when p=0? I would be
interested in your analysis of this perversion function, and your
philosophical exposition of how it can be calculated and what its properties
are.

Or are we merely dealing with a recto-cranial inversion here?

> Since we have been over this ground many times
> before, I surmise that the deterioration of your immune system under a
> perpetual ingress of foreign proteins has gravely taxed and damaged your
> modest cognitive faculties.

My immune system is just fine, Pervert. Your AIDS jokes are what is
really sick. See a doctor.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 2:52:26 AM3/8/95
to

Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
: On 5 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
:: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

::: Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
::: you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
::: would be compelled to call sexual perversion.

:: You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
:: simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:: and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world


:: for your pathetic intellectual handicap.

: You are either too fatuous to notice I was *not* talking about conception,

^^^^^^^^^^
: but about precisely the opposite--or you are lying, which would not be
: remarkable.

Though you may feel entitled to the use of an idiolect wherein
"conception" is synonymous with "contraception", the rest of the
world is hardly obliged to follow you in your linguistico-logical
confusion.

Norman R. Gall

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 4:16:37 PM3/7/95
to
In article <3ji8io$k...@fred.uswnvg.com>, dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com () wrote:

>Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3je99e$l...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>: : And to be even clearer:
>: :
>: : "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
>
>: I stand by that claim.
>
>MIchael stands there, comforted by his belief, as many, many poeple
>who have committed non-fertile sex acts point, laugh and go back to
>their lives, secure in the knowlege that his judgement of morality
>doesn't apply to them.

Quite right. Not only is the idea that a sex act can be *essentially*
anything either empty or irrelevant to morality, the above judgement
doesn't even seem to express what Zeleny wants it to express.

What makes a sex act 'fertile'? Sex acts aren't able to bear offspring,
organisms are. Even in the most figurative interpretation of 'fertile'
(fruitful) we are left to ask what fruitful means... what are the fruits
of a sex act? Semen (for men)? Orgasm? A sore wrist? Unless we wish to
invoke that question begging concept 'essentiality'...

It just shows again how vacuous Zeleny's position really is...

Norm Gall
--
"If people did not sometimes do silly things, nothing intelligent
would ever get done." L. Wittgenstein, CV 50
---> Finger ga...@hadar.cc.umanitoba.ca for my pgp public key

Gary Weston

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 2:00:36 PM3/8/95
to
Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) wrote:
: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

: > Of course, I've actually *known* homosexual lovers. I see no difference
: >between the quality of their love and my own. Thus, being trained in
: >a semi-scientific fashion, I must conclude that homosexual sexual relations
: >are no more "animal" than my own.

: I'd like to see how Zeleny responds to the fact that
: heterosexuals in pre-modern times used anal sex as a form of
: natural expression in aid of contraception....

In many cultures they still do.
--
Gary Weston vi...@crl.com |Nunca entra en disputas.
Petaluma, CA Pues, de vez en cuando...

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 5:33:40 AM3/9/95
to
be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
::: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

::: "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."

:: I stand by that claim.

: So all contraceptive-using sex is immoral, no matter WHO does it.

Only radical surgical means of contraception result in essential
infertility. Like all forms of self-mutilation, they constitute a
willful debasement of one's own body.

: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.

Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.

: Surely choice is a vector in this all, or do you deny freedom to
: choose pleasurable acts which have no particular purpose except
: the fulfilment of human happiness and nature??

Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure. At least the
heterosexual who chooses to sodomize his partner has the option of
fertile intercourse immediately available with the same partner.
Not so with the homosexual.

Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 4:40:29 PM3/9/95
to
Rod Swift <be...@fohnix.metronet.com> wrote:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

::::: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.

:::: There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
:::: exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.

::: Translation: I can't answer Tony Quirke, so I'll just add a cute
::: little cop out at the end of this whole message.

:: Does the concept of a term of art have any meaning to you?

: Translation: I can't answer Rod's absolutely correct critique of
: my blathering bullshit.

You are lying. I answered you in the part you elided:

:: Essential
:: properties obtain of necessity in virtue of internal structure. The
:: least possibility of P happening therefore vitiates the claim of the
:: essential impossibility of P. Quirke's preposterous paraphrase of my
:: explanation as readily attests to his blithering stupidity as your
:: elision thereof adverts to your devious dishonesty.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 5:07:48 AM3/9/95
to
In article <3jjpvs$r...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

::: Since food is necessary for continued existance, and farmers
::: produce food, the Zeleny interpretation of Kant requires that
::: everyone not a farmer is acting immorally.

:: Please forgive me for interfering with your fanciful disclaimers by
:: introducing a factual reminder. Kindly recall that this discussion
:: originates in an attempt to explain Kant's explicit denunciation of
:: homosexuality, which he assimilates to sexual intercourse with
:: animals, recommending castration as an appropriate punishment under
:: the principle of ius talionis.

: Then Kant, IMHO, is wrong.
:

: Of course, I've actually *known* homosexual lovers. I see no difference
: between the quality of their love and my own. Thus, being trained in
: a semi-scientific fashion, I must conclude that homosexual sexual relations
: are no more "animal" than my own.

How can you know that? are you referring to knowledge in the Biblical sense?

:: Now, Kant is not entirely free from prejudice -- for example, he is not
:: fond of Jews, regarding their peculiar ways as an obstacle to the moral
:: progress of mankind.

: Presumably showing that you agree that Kant can be wrong.

Everyone can be wrong. Consider the next sentence, which you
conveniently elided:

:: But since he never countenances any sort of coercion or punishment
:: of a people failing to satisfy his idea of proper religious conduct,
:: it is important to ask why he thinks both appropriate in case of
:: individuals failing to satisfy his idea of proper sexual conduct.

Like many men of his time, Kant goes wildly astray in the domain of
anthropology. Moreover, his ideas of retributive justice are hardly
ours. But I think it is safe to say that he gets the principles of
his moral edifice sufficiently sound to warrant the truth of their
immediaqte conclusions, such as I have drawn in this exchange.

: [Drastically cut]

:: For the application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes
:: an antecedent determination of a rational social order. We may choose
:: a trade if and only if the general maxim of our choice is consistent
:: with the functioning of such order. In particular, our alimentary needs
:: imply an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way conforming to a possible
:: universal law consistent with the production of food, just as our sexual
:: nature implies an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way conforming to a
:: possible universal law consistent with the production of the next
:: generation. In an economy characterized by a division of labor, any
:: productive occupation satisfies this criterion.

: You have just established that, in the case of the moral requirement
: to provide sustenance, the actual moral obligation the individual has
: is modified by the foreseeable consequences of their actions within the
: context of those actions, in this case an economy with division of labour.
:
: I realise that you're still saying there *is* an obligation, but that
: the circumstances modify the actual requirements needed to fill that.

Your mistake is in using empiricist categories in the analysis of a
rationalist argument. In the case of the moral requirement to produce
goods so as to fulfill the needs presupposed by our agency (such as
sustenance, clothing, shelter, power, and so on) the actual moral
obligation incumbent upon the individual must be modified -- not by the
foreseeable consequences of their actions within their context, but by
the causal powers implicit in the structural aspects of their actions as
determined by their context -- in this case an economy dependent upon a
division of labor. The difference arises because the empiricist notion
of causal powers of the act-type P is intrinsically beholden to the
scrutiny of the temporal consequences of all individual occurrences of
the act-tokens of P, whereas the rationalist feels justified in imputing
such causal powers to each particular act-token P on the basis of its
subsumption by the corresponding universal act-type. (Incidentally,
this is why consequentialism is the concomital ethical doctrine of the
modern empiricist, whereas natural law and especially deontology are the
province of the modern rationalist. Since Aquinas preceded Hume, was
able to combine an empiricist epistemology with steadfast adherence to
an Aristotelian variety of natural law.) So your analysis is taking off
in the wrong direction.

:: However, the human nature does not admit of a sexual division of labor.

: Wrong.
:
: The fact that a replacement level of children can arise in a society
: where some breed and some do not directly implies that there can be a
: such a sexual division, between those bringing up children and the rest
: of us.

Though I cannot presume to speak for the Kiwi practices, around these
parts upbringing is decidedly not a sexual act, and our justice system
strives mightily to prevent it from being treated as one.

: I point out that the mere production of children is not the aim. We
: are talking about a whole range of activities, from supplying sperm and
: ova, to carrying and delivering the baby, to clothing, feeding and
: sheltering the child, to educating and socializing it.

You are pointing out that the mere production of children is not "the
aim" -- of what? Kant's discussion of the natural end of sexuality
being the preservation of species can apply only to that part of the
said end entirely implicit in the sexual act as such -- namely, to
conception. As important as it might be to carry and deliver the baby,
to clothe, feed, and shelter the child, or to educate and socialize it,
nothing in the action of Brian pumping away against the hairy buttocks
of Bruce is even remotely relevant to the satisfaction of these duties.
By contrast, the power of human sexuality as such is directly relevant
to human generation; and in choosing their partners in a way essentially
incompatible with the fulfillment of that purpose, both Brian and Bruce
willfully excuse themselves from contributing to the sexual economy of
mankind. The act of homosexual intercourse therefore amounts to a theft
of pleasure concomitant with a potentially generative act, accompanied
by a principled refusal to contribute anything to the task of generation.

: Since the foreseeable consequences of stressing reproduction above all
: else produces a large quantity of dead mothers and children, and a new
: generation of unhealthy savages, these activities are just as, if not more,
: important in producing moral actors than PiV sex.

If you resent generative sex, consider abstaining from it. That would
be much less harmful to others than expressing your resentment by opting
for an essentially sterile form of sexuality.

: Indeed, there is never any problem finding volunteers to indulge in
: PiV sex.

Similarly, an idle parasite might claim that there is never any problem
finding volunteers to indulge in productive labor.

:: This is not just a biological fact grounded in our dissimilarity from a
:: society of ants; it is a fact based in our moral nature as autonomous agents
:: capable of determining and fulfilling our duty without any reference
:: to our inclination.

: If, as I am not inclined to debate, there is a moral duty to produce
: *and raise* children, I apply the principle established above, that the
: actual moral obligation the individual has is modified by the foreseeable
: consequences of their actions within the context of those actions.

The foreseeable consequences of thievery is a stimulus to gainful
employment in law enforcement, criminal justice, jurisprudence, and
insurance. However the act of theft as such is bereft of productive
import. I trust that you are capable of completing the analogy.

: Since the context of sexual action is still that of human society, where
: sufficient children will be *produced* no matter what the sexual activity
: of the individual, there is no obligation to participate in the *production*
: of children, in reproductive sex.

Similarly, since the context of theft is still that of human society,
where sufficient goods will be *produced* no matter what the occupation
of the individual, there seems to be no obligation to participate in the
production of goods, in productive labor. Do you see how ludicrous your
reasoning can get?

: You claim that this is a shrugging off of moral duty onto others. I
: disagree. I claim that this is basing one's choices on empirical observation
: of the world. There is no way the choice to engage in homosexual sex will
: endanger the birthrate in aggregate. Therefore, those engaging in homosexual
: sex do not threaten the birthrate, and thus do not act contrary to the
: circumstances of their own existence, that being that *someone* reproduced.

...therefore, those engaging in theft do not threaten the economy, and
thus do not act contrary to the circumstances of their own existence,
that being that *someone* produced.

: There might very well be an obligation to *support* the production of
: children and the raising of them, but this is also achieved by participation
: in the economy, productive labour, and contributions to tax-funded school
: and medical facilities. An even more direct way to meet this obligation is
: to adopt, something that homosexual couples have already done.

So a thief can be redeemed by paying taxes and contributing to charity.

::: Translation: When people show how stupid my comments are, I refuse to
::: speak on the subject and claim victory.

:: You are mistaken in taking this for an adversarial confrontation. I
:: hurt you not in order to prevail over you, but to open your resentful
:: mind to learning and knowledge.

: You are not my teacher, Zeleny. I do not respect you, I do not respect
: the way you apply your learning, I do not respect your claim to honesty.
: Don't flatter yourself.

You are the one flattering yourself, in assuming that your respect matters.

:: It is customary to teach sword skills by hitting the pupil on the head
:: with a bamboo stick.

: Somehow, someone so obsessed with that which they despise seems pretty
: far away from Zen teaching.

I am a Jewish philosopher, not a Japanese monk. Consider the precedents
recorded in the books of the Prophets.

:: With any luck, you will walk away with more than a bruised ego.

: Likewise. Mu.

In view of your character and residence, "Baa" would be more appropriate.

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 1:57:27 AM3/10/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>:: The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
>:: antecedent determination of a rational social order.

>: Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
>: producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?

>This is not a permissible assumption, since there is nothing in the
>social order as such to ensure the production of even a single child.

Oh dear, you *still* haven't managed to cope with my little analogy.

There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production of
even a single grain of wheat. Therefore, if we cannot leave reproductive sex
to others, we also cannot leave food production to others. Time to grab your
overalls and mosey on down to the farm, Zeleny.

We can observe the empirical results of the working of the economy, and
establish rules of thumb (such as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand), and thus
predict with an extremely high rate of probability that food will continue
to be manufactured.

We can also observe the empirical results of population trends and
establish rules of thumb (such as the correlation between women's education
levels and reproductive choices), and thus predict with an extremely high
rate of probability that children will continue to be born.

Therefore the application of your musing on moral duties to the present
social context must be modified by observing a rational social order which
will continue to provide children at a remarkably predictable rate.

Therefore there is no moral duty for any one person to reproduce, or
engage in reproductive sex.

>: I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive


>: sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
>: non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
>: proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.

>So is gratuitous homicide, as witness the evening news.

Thank you for evading my point.

Gratuitous homicide cannot be condemned on the grounds that it prevents
the reproduction of the next generation. Neither can consensual adult
homosexuality as chosen by those who desire it.

Gratuitous homocide can be condemned on the grounds of violating people's
rights. Consensual adult homosexuality cannot.

>: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.

>You are not getting any smarter.

And you're getting *less* credible.

It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.

- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)

"Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
and respectful or outed and obstreperous." - Michael Zeleny, 6 Mar 1995,
on failing to believe that a straight could disrespect his views.

Rod Swift

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 12:13:17 PM3/9/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>The act of homosexual intercourse therefore amounts to a theft
>of pleasure concomitant with a potentially generative act, accompanied
>by a principled refusal to contribute anything to the task of generation.

Are you going to start playing "bedroom cop" to stop such acts of
theft?

Is this part of your messianic complex?

>If you resent generative sex, consider abstaining from it. That would
>be much less harmful to others than expressing your resentment by opting
>for an essentially sterile form of sexuality.

I don't *resent* heterosexual sex. I just don't particularly
find it to be compatible with my inherent nature, and hence I do
not practice it for *that* reason -- not one of resentment.

And, to take a leaf out of your book... If you resent
pleasurable consensual homosexual sex, consider abstaining from it.


That would be much less harmful to others than expressing your

resentment by opting for an essentially stupid blather over the
Usenet.

>I am a Jewish philosopher, not a Japanese monk. Consider the precedents
>recorded in the books of the Prophets.

You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for
his genocide, I'm sure.

>In view of your character and residence, "Baa" would be more appropriate.

Been talking to your animals again, Zeleny? You know, your dog
that consents to marriage with you? Did he tell you what to
write? When will you send us tapes and pictures of your dog
oracle?

Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 3:25:54 PM3/10/95
to
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
::: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:::: The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
:::: antecedent determination of a rational social order.

::: Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
::: producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?

:: This is not a permissible assumption, since there is nothing in the
:: social order as such to ensure the production of even a single child.

: Oh dear, you *still* haven't managed to cope with my little analogy.

Remarkable how you can claim this so unselfconsciously.

: There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production of


: even a single grain of wheat. Therefore, if we cannot leave reproductive sex
: to others, we also cannot leave food production to others. Time to grab your
: overalls and mosey on down to the farm, Zeleny.

Stop. Right. Here.

There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production

of even a single grain of wheat -- except for the laws of supply and
demand. As long as your labor results in production valued by the
market, you are guaranteed reciprocal access to goods of similar value
in exchange for its fruits. Looking at this from another angle: the
production of any exchange value stimulates the market economy to
enable the satisfaction of every economic need. Conformant with the
stipulation of a rational social order, these inferences are all
grounded in nomological connections salient to productive labor as
such, rather than mere predictions with an extremely high rate of
probability. Contrast: there is nothing in the possible outcome of
buggery, as distinguished from orthogenital intercourse, to connect
with the emergence of the next generation. Moreover, there is nothing
in the possible outcome of homosexual behavior as such, as
distinguished from heterosexual behavior as such, to connect with the
emergence of the next generation. Therefore, just as *only* our
personal involvement in the general economic production of goods
enables us to leave the production of any particular goods to others,
no amount of sexually *sterile* practice can warrant us to leave
reproductive sex to others.

: We can observe the empirical results of the working of the economy, and


: establish rules of thumb (such as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand), and thus
: predict with an extremely high rate of probability that food will continue
: to be manufactured.

Rationality is not comprised of rules of thumb. Rational inferences
can proceed only in accordance with laws. The laws of economics
ensure that supply meets demand, and that having exchange value at
one's disposal enables one to meet his demand.

: We can also observe the empirical results of population trends and

: establish rules of thumb (such as the correlation between women's education
: levels and reproductive choices), and thus predict with an extremely high
: rate of probability that children will continue to be born.

Contrast: though the success of your prediction of future production
of food is sustained by the incidence of productive labor, the success
of your prediction of future reproduction of mankind is not merely
disconnected from, but actually subverted by, the incidence of
homosexual sex.

: Therefore the application of your musing on moral duties to the present

: social context must be modified by observing a rational social order which
: will continue to provide children at a remarkably predictable rate.

You have no grasp of rationality.

: Therefore there is no moral duty for any one person to reproduce, or
: engage in reproductive sex.

The contrary has been shown.

::: I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive


::: sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
::: non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
::: proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.

:: So is gratuitous homicide, as witness the evening news.

: Thank you for evading my point.

Your point has been made in ignorance. The maxim of free choice is
indeterminate of behavior, and hence indeterminable of its moral
merit.

: Gratuitous homicide cannot be condemned on the grounds that it prevents


: the reproduction of the next generation. Neither can consensual adult
: homosexuality as chosen by those who desire it.

Prevention is too strong a term. But each act mitigates the
reproduction of the next generation in its own way.

: Gratuitous homocide can be condemned on the grounds of violating people's


: rights. Consensual adult homosexuality cannot.

Explain the rational ground of the rights violated in the former case.

::: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.

:: You are not getting any smarter.

: And you're getting *less* credible.

Just as buggery makes no contribution to sexual generation, stupidity
makes no contribution to the assessment of intellectual merit.

: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.

The contrary has been shown.

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 12, 1995, 12:42:17 AM3/12/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:

>: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.

>Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.

Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself yet *again*:

"So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to
a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
moral deliberation."

If, "at the moment of your conception" [passing over the disparity between
conception and ejaculation], you parents had been practising oral sex rather
than PiV sex, you wouldn't be here.

By your own words, ejaculation anywhere but in a vagina is immoral.

>: Surely choice is a vector in this all, or do you deny freedom to
>: choose pleasurable acts which have no particular purpose except
>: the fulfilment of human happiness and nature??

>Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure.

Wrong. Human nature includes the seeking of pleasure, and this seeking
is in itself moral.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 12, 1995, 5:02:01 AM3/12/95