Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; Ex Luce Ad Tenebras

[James Nicoll]

So, an ill-timed puff piece on Marion Zimmer Bradley, whose role in
facilitating her husband's crimes has been documented in her own
depositions online since 1999, led to a discussion about said
facilitation:

http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-gave-us-new-perspectives-all-right/

Tor.com didn't seem terribly eager to partake in the discussion, because
they yanked their piece. That didn't stop the conversation, which soon
revealed that as bad as things appeared, the true was worse:

http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-its-worse-than-i-knew/

But as a special gift, it turns out the recent Patterson bio of Heinlein
sheds light on what RAH thought of the original Breendoggle:

http://deirdre.net/robert-heinlein-on-the-breendoggle/

Enjoy!
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

[David Johnston]

On 6/18/2014 12:20 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> So, an ill-timed puff piece on Marion Zimmer Bradley, whose role in
> facilitating her husband's crimes has been documented in her own
> depositions online since 1999, led to a discussion about said
> facilitation:
>
> http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-gave-us-new-perspectives-all-right/
>
> Tor.com didn't seem terribly eager to partake in the discussion, because
> they yanked their piece. That didn't stop the conversation, which soon
> revealed that as bad as things appeared, the true was worse:
>
> http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-its-worse-than-i-knew/
>
> But as a special gift, it turns out the recent Patterson bio of Heinlein
> sheds light on what RAH thought of the original Breendoggle:
>
> http://deirdre.net/robert-heinlein-on-the-breendoggle/
>
> Enjoy!
>

�We interrupt this reading of The Heritage of Hastur for a moment of snark
([personal profile] rachelmanija Dec. 10th, 2005 09:30 am)

Lew Alton, Regis Hastur, et al: "Dyan Ardais broke my elbow! Dyan Ardais
ruins the lives of innocent cadets! Dyan Ardais rapes twelve small boys
before breakfast every morning!"

Kennard Alton: "Now, now, everyone's got their little quirks."

Regis Hastur: "And also, Dyan Ardais made illegal use of telepathy for
the purposes of sexual harassment."

Kennard Alton: "OMG! He must be stopped!"
Tags: author: bradley marion zimmer

[James Nicoll]

In article <lnsn52$d6i$1...@dont-email.me>,

By an astounding coincidence, that is the very novel that is dedicated
to Breen.

[David Johnston]

Yeah. Go fig.

This took me back to my old project of creating a roleplaying game
supplement of worlds each of which would be dedicated to recurrent
elements of a particular author. (Like for Jack Chalker it's physical
transformation into other species and sexes, and mental reprogramming)
For MZB's world one of them was "Has a mating season".

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:20:22 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:

> But as a special gift, it turns out the recent Patterson bio of Heinlein
> sheds light on what RAH thought of the original Breendoggle:

I hope Heinlein sincerely believed that Breen was completely innocent.

Otherwise, his works may join those of MZB as being essentially unpublishable by any major publisher, despite their intrinsic merit.

This doesn't mean they'd be _banned_, in violation of the First Amendment, just that they would suffer a loss of respectability, and thus be an embarrassment to any publisher handling them.

For similar reasons, Gill Sans and Perpetua may start disappearing, as our society's consciousness of this sort of issue progresses.

John Savard

[A.G.McDowell]

This is why I think we should demand no more of authors than "keeps out
of jail and hospital for just long enough to write their books". I
believe it is also unjust - if somebody has committed a crime, then
punish them for the crime according to the law, but not also by
sanctions whipped up by popular sentiment, or groups with no legal
authority who suffer a conflict of interest by virtue of what they stand
to gain by the publicity that organising a boycot gives them.

I think the books should stand or fall by the story in them and any
messages they convey. In some cases, even hateful books deserve
publication as a horrible warning, or for historical interest - I
believe that the continued publication of Mein Kampf was justifiable for
these reasons.

(I haven't read much MZB - I think I read through the Mists of Avalon
noting mostly that Fantasy doesn't always appeal to me. The name Comyn,
rings a bell, but possibly that is from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_III_Comyn,_Lord_of_Badenoch).

PS - looking at that web page, there is a vivid scene worthy of Fantasy -

On 10 February 1306 Robert Bruce participated in the killing of John
Comyn before the high altar of the Greyfriars Church in Dumfries. [1]
Legend, probably apocryphal, says Robert the Bruce called Comyn to a
meeting, stabbed him and rushed out to tell Roger de Kirkpatrick.
Kirkpatrick went in to finish the job uttering: "You doubt! I mak
siccar!" ("I make sure!")

That quote "You doubt! I mak siccar!" is pure gold.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:28:10 PM UTC-7, A.G.McDowell wrote:

(snip)

> I think... even hateful books deserve

> publication as a horrible warning, or for historical interest - I
> believe that the continued publication of Mein Kampf was justifiable for
> these reasons.

One of the posters in the blogs linked to elsethread wonders why MZB could do what she did (enabling others' child sexual abuse, as well as what she did to her daughter) and yet write so much fiction dealing with the evils of rape. I agree with you that such writings deserve publication, but not just as warnings. It might be possible to gain insight into the psychology of the monsters who write such things.

I'm tempted to think of MZB's rape fixation as an attempt at self-analysis, but I don't know enough psychology to make a bare assertion like that. It may just have been her internal weirdness bleeding into her writing. Or both.

What gets me about the whole stinking mess is noticing the horror we feel at knowing such things happen in supposedly civilized places and times, yet we see the same stuff going on today in Afghanistan and India for two examples. Oh, and daughters of Nigerian immigrants to America being sent on "vacations" back to Africa to get "cut".


Mark L. Fergerson

[David Johnston]

On 6/18/2014 11:28 PM, A.G.McDowell wrote:
> On 18/06/2014 21:02, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:20:22 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> But as a special gift, it turns out the recent Patterson bio of Heinlein
>>> sheds light on what RAH thought of the original Breendoggle:
>>
>> I hope Heinlein sincerely believed that Breen was completely innocent.
>>
>> Otherwise, his works may join those of MZB as being essentially
>> unpublishable by any major publisher, despite their intrinsic merit.
>>
>> This doesn't mean they'd be _banned_, in violation of the First
>> Amendment, just that they would suffer a loss of respectability, and
>> thus be an embarrassment to any publisher handling them.
>>
>> For similar reasons, Gill Sans and Perpetua may start disappearing, as
>> our society's consciousness of this sort of issue progresses.
>>
>> John Savard
> This is why I think we should demand no more of authors than "keeps out
> of jail and hospital for just long enough to write their books". I
> believe it is also unjust - if somebody has committed a crime, then
> punish them for the crime according to the law, but not also by
> sanctions whipped up by popular sentiment, or groups with no legal
> authority who suffer a conflict of interest by virtue of what they stand
> to gain by the publicity that organising a boycot gives them.
>

I have never seen an actually successful attempt to organize a boycott
of a book. But I do think people have a right to take a dislike to an
author and on that basis decide not to buy them.

[James Nicoll]

In article <18727f75-ca4f-4b66...@googlegroups.com>,

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:20:22 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> But as a special gift, it turns out the recent Patterson bio of Heinlein
>> sheds light on what RAH thought of the original Breendoggle:
>
>I hope Heinlein sincerely believed that Breen was completely innocent.
>
>Otherwise, his works may join those of MZB as being essentially
>unpublishable by any major publisher, despite their intrinsic merit.
>

Note that despite the shirt tearing above, MZB remains in print and
new Darkover books keep coming out despite the fact all this came out
15 years ago. It's not like DAW hasn't had a chance to decide that MZB
was too much of a hot potato and drop her or that DAW has no experience
ditching authors they no longer care to publish.

[James Nicoll]

In article <lnu186$i7a$1...@dont-email.me>,

Well, there was the attempt to organize a boycott of Enders Game: The Movie,
admittedly a movie and not a book. The movie underperformed but that
year would-be blockbusters like RIPD, The Lone Ranger, Turbo, After Earth,
Percy Jackson: The Sea of Monsters, Mortal Instruments: City of Bones and
White House Down also underperformed so I am inclined explain the franchise-
killing box office on it not being a good year to release a block-buster.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:28:10 PM UTC-6, A.G.McDowell wrote:

> I
> believe it is also unjust - if somebody has committed a crime, then
> punish them for the crime according to the law, but not also by
> sanctions whipped up by popular sentiment, or groups with no legal
> authority who suffer a conflict of interest by virtue of what they stand
> to gain by the publicity that organising a boycot gives them.

I can't get worked up about the injustice involved. There's a bit in Blackstone's Commentaries about how France had the death penalty for highway robbery; England did not, reserving it for cases where the robber also committed murder - and the result was that highway robbers killed their victims in France routinely to leave fewer witnesses behind.

This is the reason why rape doesn't carry the death penalty - not because it doesn't deserve it. The Eighth Amendment is another obstacle to enacting a just penalty for the crime of rape.

But there is quite another issue involved here, which has nothing to do with justice or injustice.

A convicted rapist, on his release from prison, might be expected to encounter difficulty, even if fully rehabilitated, in forming a relationship and getting married. I trust you would not be expecting the government to *do something* about that.

The government also should not be telling us what books we should read.

Now, of course, your objection may only be to organized campaigns whipping up sentiment in favor of a boycott.

I'd judge such a campaign by the rationale behind it.

I think it is highly appropriate for our society to have a high degree of revulsion towards sexual abuse in all its forms.

As an example, the U.S. failed to respond adequately to reports that rapes were being committed against Vietnamese boat people by pirates, in my opinion. An adequate response is to do whatever is necessary to prevent it from happening - send ships out there to escort the escapees, to transport them to a safe harbor.

Given that advertisers, TV networks, and publishers all depend on having a good reputation in the eyes of the public to sell to them, that authors convicted of heinous crimes would be pushed out to the margins seems a natural thing that there is no good way to prevent consistent with the individual freedoms of everyone else.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 19 June 2014 13:55:42 UTC+1, James Nicoll wrote:
> Note that despite the shirt tearing above, MZB remains in print and
> new Darkover books keep coming out despite the fact all this came out
> 15 years ago. It's not like DAW hasn't had a chance to decide that MZB
> was too much of a hot potato and drop her or that DAW has no experience
> ditching authors they no longer care to publish.

They don't put it in "About the Author" though (do they?)

Perhaps the notoriety, insofar as it arises, is -
perhaps unfortunately - a commercial positive?

[David Johnston]

Nah. For one thing, she just isn't that notorious. This is not
something that has spread all over teh interwebz so it's impossible to
not know about her culpability.

[James Nicoll]

In article <45c39ef9-88e4-4fd7...@googlegroups.com>,

Although the facts are available online, a lot of people have not encountered
them, even authors currently writing Darkover material:

http://simner.com/blog/?p=5775

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:57:44 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> a lot of people have not encountered
> them, even authors currently writing Darkover material:

Well, *hopefully* not, as that makes their currently writing Darkover material excusable!

John Savard

[David Johnston]

...Oh please. That's taking guilt by association a little far.

[J. Clarke]

In article <lnumke$pf6$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...

>
> In article <18727f75-ca4f-4b66...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:20:22 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >
> >> But as a special gift, it turns out the recent Patterson bio of Heinlein
> >> sheds light on what RAH thought of the original Breendoggle:
> >
> >I hope Heinlein sincerely believed that Breen was completely innocent.
> >
> >Otherwise, his works may join those of MZB as being essentially
> >unpublishable by any major publisher, despite their intrinsic merit.
> >
> Note that despite the shirt tearing above, MZB remains in print and
> new Darkover books keep coming out despite the fact all this came out
> 15 years ago. It's not like DAW hasn't had a chance to decide that MZB
> was too much of a hot potato and drop her or that DAW has no experience
> ditching authors they no longer care to publish.

The fact is that most people neither know nor care about the pecadillos
of science fiction writers, and even if they did, trying to punish
someone who has been dead for 15 years seems rather pointless.

[J. Clarke]

In article <lnunc4$cb8$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...

Could be. I decided to give it a miss because money's tight right now
and the discussion on IMDB indicated that it wasn't really up to the
source material anyway. The boycott did not enter into the decision--if
I had been on the fence the call for a boycott might have pushed me to
see it.

[David Harmon]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:08:20 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.written,
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote,

>Well, there was the attempt to organize a boycott of Enders Game: The Movie,
>admittedly a movie and not a book. The movie underperformed but that

I felt no need to see it after reading the book. I likewise felt no
need to see Titanic after Roger Ebert said the ship sank.

[lal_truckee]

On 6/19/14 1:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

> The fact is that most people neither know nor care about the pecadillos
> of science fiction writers, and even if they did, trying to punish
> someone who has been dead for 15 years seems rather pointless.

Unless they had the foresight to be cremated, you could exhume and flay
the corpse. Which is about what's happening here.

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:37:50 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> The fact is that most people neither know nor care about the pecadillos
> of science fiction writers, and even if they did, trying to punish
> someone who has been dead for 15 years seems rather pointless.

The point isn't to punish her.

The point is to ensure that no one receives a mixed message about acts of sexual abuse; that everything points in the same direction, constantly reinforcing and never diminishing the message that they are condemned. Not to leave the slightest room for someone concluding, because of our actions and choices, that acts of sexual abuse aren't really that bad after all.

John Savard

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-06-19, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> The point is to ensure that no one receives a mixed message about acts of
> sexual abuse; that everything points in the same direction, constantly
> reinforcing and never diminishing the message that they are condemned. Not to
> leave the slightest room for someone concluding, because of our actions and
> choices, that acts of sexual abuse aren't really that bad after all.

Hm. Just out of curiosity, John, do you know what the difference between
abuse (not necessarily sexual) and BDSM is?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[J. Clarke]

In article <279261ad-8150-400d...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

How about instead of boycotting dead authors we do something about
living abusers?

[Moriarty]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 10:11:16 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:

> How about instead of boycotting dead authors we do something about living
> abusers?

Particularly since the people likely to benefit from anyone spending money on MZB's work are her children, i.e. abuse victims.

-Moriarty

[Dimensional Traveler]

Or that all those movies were not good.


--
"There is some deep burning stupid" - Anim8rFSK, Jun 01 2014

[James Nicoll]

In article <1b453085-8528-4d1d...@googlegroups.com>,

In the abstract, yes, but in this specific case the kids get nothing.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?728472-Marion-Zimmer-Bradley-enabler-and-perpetrator-of-child-abuse/page19

(you have to scroll down a bit)

Lisa Waters benefits, not the kids.

[James Nicoll]

In article <53a3b59f$0$52756$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Intelligence insulting crap made money before...

[Moriarty]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 2:19:09 PM UTC+10, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <1b453085-8528-4d1d...@googlegroups.com>, Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>>Particularly since the people likely to benefit from anyone spending
>>money on MZB's work are her children, i.e. abuse victims.

>In the abstract, yes, but in this specific case the kids get nothing.
>http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?728472-Marion-Zimmer-Bradley-enabler-and-perpetrator-of-child-abuse/page19
>(you have to scroll down a bit) Lisa Waters benefits, not the kids.

Ah, OK. Further reading on that page suggests that Waters is not someone whose financial wellbeing I'd like to contribute to, as she sounds as nasty a piece of work as MZB herself. It's moot with me anyway; I read an MZB book once, didn't care for it, and have never had the slightest inclination to pick up another one.

-Moriarty

[James Nicoll]

In article <052cb655-44e4-4ec8...@googlegroups.com>,

Ah, caught in the same trap I am with Card. Hate his stuff and don't read it
unless paid, so how can I swear it off in irritation with him?

[Greg Goss]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:

>Nah. For one thing, she just isn't that notorious. This is not
>something that has spread all over teh interwebz so it's impossible to
>not know about her culpability.

This thread is the first I've heard of it. But I've never been a big
MZB fan because the books just don't do anything for me.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:57:35 PM UTC-6, David DeLaney wrote:

> Hm. Just out of curiosity, John, do you know what the difference between
> abuse (not necessarily sexual) and BDSM is?

Consent.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:11:16 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> How about instead of boycotting dead authors we do something about
> living abusers?

It is intended that this would be in addition to, and as part of, the effort to reduce and eliminate ongoing abuse.

John Savard

[David DeLaney]

Exactly. Carry on!

Dave, and Now I Know

[Ken Arromdee]

In article <lnunc4$cb8$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I have never seen an actually successful attempt to organize a boycott
>>of a book. But I do think people have a right to take a dislike to an
>>author and on that basis decide not to buy them.
>Well, there was the attempt to organize a boycott of Enders Game: The Movie,
>admittedly a movie and not a book. The movie underperformed but that
>year would-be blockbusters like RIPD, The Lone Ranger, Turbo, After Earth,
>Percy Jackson: The Sea of Monsters, Mortal Instruments: City of Bones and
>White House Down also underperformed so I am inclined explain the franchise-
>killing box office on it not being a good year to release a block-buster.

People *successfully* organized a boycott of Orson Scott Card's Superman
run. I suppose it depends on what counts as a successful boycott, since
that succeeded because the artist pulled out.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Some fanfic writers really like listening to Evanescence, so they decide to
make all the characters fans of it. Slash fiction is the same, but with
penises instead of Evanescence.

[Magewolf]

On 6/20/2014 12:19 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article<1b453085-8528-4d1d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Moriarty<blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, June 20, 2014 10:11:16 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> How about instead of boycotting dead authors we do something about living
>>> abusers?
>>
>> Particularly since the people likely to benefit from anyone spending
>> money on MZB's work are her children, i.e. abuse victims.
>>
> In the abstract, yes, but in this specific case the kids get nothing.
>
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?728472-Marion-Zimmer-Bradley-enabler-and-perpetrator-of-child-abuse/page19
>
> (you have to scroll down a bit)
>
> Lisa Waters benefits, not the kids.

Anyplace you can see that without having to register?

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 4:36:00 PM UTC-6, Ken Arromdee wrote:

> People *successfully* organized a boycott of Orson Scott Card's Superman
> run. I suppose it depends on what counts as a successful boycott, since
> that succeeded because the artist pulled out.

This comes as news to me.

However, I did notice that somewhat recently, there was a potentially very controversial plotline in the Superman comic... where President Lex Luthor was involved in events that were analogous to the version of history that appears to be advocated by "9/11 Truthers" - that 9/11 was Bush's Reichstag Fire.

That's offensive enough that even a veiled presentation of the notion would be likely to create a backlash, I would think.

John Savard

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-06-20 22:36:00 +0000, arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) said:

> In article <lnunc4$cb8$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> I have never seen an actually successful attempt to organize a boycott
>>> of a book. But I do think people have a right to take a dislike to an
>>> author and on that basis decide not to buy them.
>> Well, there was the attempt to organize a boycott of Enders Game: The Movie,
>> admittedly a movie and not a book. The movie underperformed but that
>> year would-be blockbusters like RIPD, The Lone Ranger, Turbo, After Earth,
>> Percy Jackson: The Sea of Monsters, Mortal Instruments: City of Bones and
>> White House Down also underperformed so I am inclined explain the franchise-
>> killing box office on it not being a good year to release a block-buster.
>
> People *successfully* organized a boycott of Orson Scott Card's Superman
> run.

It's hard to boycott something that never appeared. And it's also a
stretch to call a single, never-published 10-page story a "run."

> I suppose it depends on what counts as a successful boycott, since
> that succeeded because the artist pulled out.

The audience certainly raised enough of a stink to get first an artist
to pull out and then the publisher to decide it wasn't worth the
hassle. That's a successful protest, sure. But I don't know that it
could be called a boycott, since no one got the chance to not-buy the
material.

And one wonders how many of those people bought OSC's ULTIMATE IRON MAN run...

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:53:27 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:lo0eo7$nqm$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <052cb655-44e4-4ec8...@googlegroups.com>,
> Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:

[...]

>> Ah, OK. Further reading on that page suggests that
>> Waters is not someone whose financial wellbeing I'd like
>> to contribute to, as she sounds as nasty a piece of work
>> as MZB herself. It's moot with me anyway; I read an MZB
>> book once, didn't care for it, and have never had the
>> slightest inclination to pick up another one.

Her early non-Darkover novel _The Door Through Space_ was
fun in a Leigh Brackett sort of way, and the non-sf _The
Catch Trap_ was interesting. I quite enjoyed the earlier
Darkover books, say up through _The Heritage of Hastur_;
_The World Wreckers_ was my favorite. But I lost interest
after that and haven’t been tempted by any of it in years.

> Ah, caught in the same trap I am with Card. Hate his stuff
> and don't read it unless paid, so how can I swear it off
> in irritation with him?

Same way I do: very easily!

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[William December Starr]

In article <270913fe-0aaf-4b40...@googlegroups.com>,
"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> said:

> What gets me about the whole stinking mess is noticing the horror
> we feel at knowing such things happen in supposedly civilized
> places and times, yet we see the same stuff going on today in
> Afghanistan and India for two examples. Oh, and daughters of
> Nigerian immigrants to America being sent on "vacations" back to
> Africa to get "cut".

I'm afraid I'm not getting your point. That is, I think you're
asserting inconsistency or hypocrisy by this "we", but I'm not
seeing any. (Perhaps you and I disagree about whether the average
"we" person sees India and Afghanistan, or Nigeria, as being
civilized places at this time.)

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <lnumke$pf6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:

> Note that despite the shirt tearing above, MZB remains in print
> and new Darkover books keep coming out despite the fact all this
> came out 15 years ago. It's not like DAW hasn't had a chance to
> decide that MZB was too much of a hot potato and drop her or that
> DAW has no experience ditching authors they no longer care to
> publish.

What authors has DAW ditched, and why?

(I assume we're talking about "for other than purely business
reasons" here.)

-- wds

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <lo5347$hct$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

Alan Burt Akers (Ken Bulmer)

E. C. Tubb

John Norman
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2014-06-22 00:00:26 -0400, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan said:

> In article <lo5347$hct$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <lnumke$pf6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
>>
>>> Note that despite the shirt tearing above, MZB remains in print
>>> and new Darkover books keep coming out despite the fact all this
>>> came out 15 years ago. It's not like DAW hasn't had a chance to
>>> decide that MZB was too much of a hot potato and drop her or that
>>> DAW has no experience ditching authors they no longer care to
>>> publish.
>>
>> What authors has DAW ditched, and why?
>>
>> (I assume we're talking about "for other than purely business
>> reasons" here.)
>

> Alan Burt Akers (Ken Bulmer)
>
> E. C. Tubb
>
> John Norman

In all three cases there were business reasons, but I'll acknowledge
they weren't PURELY for business reasons -- Norman in particular.




--
I'm serializing a new Ethshar novel!
The twenty-second chapter is online at:
http://www.ethshar.com/ishtascompanion22.html

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:26:54 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

> In all three cases there were business reasons, but I'll acknowledge
> they weren't PURELY for business reasons -- Norman in particular.

I do not expect the intrinsic amorality of the market system to go away. Thus, rather than criticizing DAW for not taking a leadership role, _my_ concern is for the state of SF fandom, which has so far made the shunting of MZB to a less prestigious publisher something that would happen naturally... for business reasons, connected with the sale of one's other titles, though Darkover still sold well enough itself.

Nothing is achieved if DAW dumps her and Baen takes her up.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:56:48 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> On 6/19/2014 12:39 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:57:44 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> >> a lot of people have not encountered
> >> them, even authors currently writing Darkover material:

> > Well, *hopefully* not, as that makes their currently writing Darkover material excusable!

> ...Oh please. That's taking guilt by association a little far.

How is criticizing people for what they choose to do themselves, when it is also not the case that they don't know the relevant circumstances, "guilt by association"? That's when you blame people for what others who they can't control do, or for what others do that they didn't even know about when choosing to associate with them.

John Savard

[James Nicoll]

In article <lo5347$hct$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:

I was including for business reasons: when Wollheim retired, a lot of
the poorer performers got tossed off the back of the sled. But I imagine
with Norman there was very little regret felt on the DAW side about
parting ways.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:28:10 PM UTC-6, A.G.McDowell wrote:
> I
> believe that the continued publication of Mein Kampf was justifiable for
> these reasons.

I quite agree. I'm not looking for suppression; my concern is with unseemly behavior that has the potential for giving the appearance that we condone sexual abuse.

Publication of Mein Kampf for academic study, for understanding the evil it represents, does not give that impression, and serves a legitimate purpose.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 6/22/2014 8:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:28:10 PM UTC-6, A.G.McDowell wrote:
>> I
>> believe that the continued publication of Mein Kampf was justifiable for
>> these reasons.
>
> I quite agree. I'm not looking for suppression; my concern is with unseemly behavior that has the potential for giving the appearance that we condone sexual abuse.

What ARE you looking for?

[David Johnston]

On 6/22/2014 8:02 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:56:48 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 6/19/2014 12:39 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:57:44 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> a lot of people have not encountered them, even authors
>>>> currently writing Darkover material:
>
>>> Well, *hopefully* not, as that makes their currently writing
>>> Darkover material excusable!
>
>> ...Oh please. That's taking guilt by association a little far.
>
> How is criticizing people for what they choose to do themselves, when
> it is also not the case that they don't know the relevant
> circumstances, "guilt by association"? That's when you blame people
> for what others who they can't control do,

What did they choose to do themselves?

[Kurt Busiek]

Suppression.

Just voluntary suppression, brought about by people suddenly agreeing
with all Quaddy's values, and wanting to give lip service to them
rather than actually, you know, following them. Because everyone must
be prepared to abandon all these values the moment Quaddy feels
threatened and wants to nuke a bunch of innocent schoolgirls because
they're standing next to someone that scares him, or something.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:04:38 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:28:10 PM UTC-6, A.G.McDowell wrote:
>
> > I

> > believe it is also unjust - if somebody has committed a crime, then
> > punish them for the crime according to the law, but not also by
> > sanctions whipped up by popular sentiment, or groups with no legal
> > authority who suffer a conflict of interest by virtue of what they stand
> > to gain by the publicity that organising a boycot gives them.
>

> I can't get worked up about the injustice involved. There's a bit in
> Blackstone's Commentaries about how France had the death penalty for highway
> robbery; England did not, reserving it for cases where the robber also
> committed murder - and the result was that highway robbers killed their
> victims in France routinely to leave fewer witnesses behind.

I don't quite see which injustice you're referring to; the loss of income to an author involved in molestation due to organized boycott of their works?

Also, what's the relevance of the Blackstone almost-cite? Was a boycott organized in a country the molestations did not occur in, one with different penalties?

> This is the reason why rape doesn't carry the death penalty - not because it
> doesn't deserve it.

Because the penalty doesn't "fit the crime"? I'm reminded of one of Heinlein's stories where a hit-and-run driver was strapped down to a road, run over, then allowed to writhe in agony for the same length of time his victim did before medical treatment was administered.

(Speaking of Heinlein, I recall some people calling for a boycott of him for some of the stuff in _Stranger In A Strange Land_ and _Time Enough For Love_).

> The Eighth Amendment is another obstacle to enacting a
> just penalty for the crime of rape.

You've completely lost me here. Are you saying death is a just penalty for rape? If so, what's your rationale?

> But there is quite another issue involved here, which has nothing to do with
> justice or injustice.
>
> A convicted rapist, on his release from prison, might be expected to
> encounter difficulty, even if fully rehabilitated, in forming a relationship
> and getting married. I trust you would not be expecting the government to *do
> something* about that.

I'm not sure how a rapist might be "fully rehabilitated". If it's possible, why would he have the difficulties you mention?

> The government also should not be telling us what books we should read.

Mostly, it doesn't.

> Now, of course, your objection may only be to organized campaigns whipping up
> sentiment in favor of a boycott.
>
> I'd judge such a campaign by the rationale behind it.
>
> I think it is highly appropriate for our society to have a high degree of
> revulsion towards sexual abuse in all its forms.
>
> As an example, the U.S. failed to respond adequately to reports that rapes
> were being committed against Vietnamese boat people by pirates, in my
> opinion. An adequate response is to do whatever is necessary to prevent it
> from happening - send ships out there to escort the escapees, to transport
> them to a safe harbor.

Which nation's territorial waters did this occur in? If it wasn't in U. S. waters, then by legal symmetry one should have expected England to police France's roads according to England's laws...

> Given that advertisers, TV networks, and publishers all depend on having a
> good reputation in the eyes of the public to sell to them, that authors
> convicted of heinous crimes would be pushed out to the margins seems a
> natural thing that there is no good way to prevent consistent with the
> individual freedoms of everyone else.

Then one would have to look for increasingly-rare older editions of such works in private bookstores if one wished to read them. Libraries might or might not want to have them on their shelves, depending on who funds them.

Essentially though, you're describing an *un-* organized boycott of such books based on "community standards" via feedback though the market system.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Alie...@gmail.com]

I meant to show the disconnect between U. S. standards of "civilized behavior" as opposed to what's considered not just normal, but fundamental to a culture elsewhere. I marvel (in the can't stop looking at the train wreck sense) that some countries' governments are so resistant to condemn the casual rape of "unaccompanied" women in broad daylight.

Okay, there isn't a lot being published in the so-called Third World that might be boycotted here, so I seem to be perpetrating dreaded Topic Drift again. What else to do though in the case of say Saudi Arabia where AFAIK there are still no laws criminalizing the act of rape, but a victim can be whipped? What are we to do to show our dissatisfaction, stop buying gasoline?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:07:23 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:04:38 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:28:10 PM UTC-6, A.G.McDowell wrote:

> > > I
> > > believe it is also unjust - if somebody has committed a crime, then
> > > punish them for the crime according to the law, but not also by
> > > sanctions whipped up by popular sentiment, or groups with no legal
> > > authority who suffer a conflict of interest by virtue of what they stand
> > > to gain by the publicity that organising a boycot gives them.

> > I can't get worked up about the injustice involved. There's a bit in
> > Blackstone's Commentaries about how France had the death penalty for highway
> > robbery; England did not, reserving it for cases where the robber also
> > committed murder - and the result was that highway robbers killed their
> > victims in France routinely to leave fewer witnesses behind.

> I don't quite see which injustice you're referring to; the loss of income
> to an author involved in molestation due to organized boycott of their works?

> Also, what's the relevance of the Blackstone almost-cite? Was a boycott
> organized in a country the molestations did not occur in, one with different
> penalties?

I'll clarify my point.

I think it is not as unjust as it seems to inflict on a rapist penalties beyond his stay in jail, because the *just* penalty for rape _should_ be death by torture.

However, if we approach this as closely as possible by executing rapists, the result of that is likely to be to encourage them to murder their victims - one less witness, it's harder to catch them. (Like the highwaymen in Blackstone.) So we need a less severe penalty for rape than for murder, even though that means not giving a sufficiently severe penalty for rape.

> > This is the reason why rape doesn't carry the death penalty - not because it
> > doesn't deserve it.

> Because the penalty doesn't "fit the crime"? I'm reminded of one of
> Heinlein's stories where a hit-and-run driver was strapped down to a road,
> run over, then allowed to writhe in agony for the same length of time his
> victim did before medical treatment was administered.

That might be a little harsh; after all, hit-and-run is often inspired by a moment of panic. But treating a fatal hit-and-run as murder one as a way to discourage running seems not terribly unreasonable.

> (Speaking of Heinlein, I recall some people calling for a boycott of him
> for some of the stuff in _Stranger In A Strange Land_ and _Time Enough For
> Love_).

Good thing these people didn't read Starship Troopers or Farnham's Freehold?

> > The Eighth Amendment is another obstacle to enacting a
> > just penalty for the crime of rape.

> You've completely lost me here. Are you saying death is a just penalty for
> rape? If so, what's your rationale?

Rape causes devastating psychological damage to the victim.

It isn't, therefore, something we can just fix. The super-science of the future may let us regenerate lost limbs and even resurrect the dead.

But if you go around reprogramming the human brain, instead of helping the subject, you may be killing the subject and replacing him or her by the new being of your creation. There are limits to psychotherapy imposed by the constraint of respecting human autonomy.

> > But there is quite another issue involved here, which has nothing to do with
> > justice or injustice.

> > A convicted rapist, on his release from prison, might be expected to
> > encounter difficulty, even if fully rehabilitated, in forming a relationship
> > and getting married. I trust you would not be expecting the government to *do
> > something* about that.

> I'm not sure how a rapist might be "fully rehabilitated". If it's possible,
> why would he have the difficulties you mention?

I'm having trouble accepting that you're serious here.

So I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Thus, I don't think I should try based on my lack of understanding.

> Which nation's territorial waters did this occur in? If it wasn't in U. S.
> waters, then by legal symmetry one should have expected England to police
> France's roads according to England's laws...

It was in international waters.

But what does that have to do with "Thou shalt not allow a human to come to harm through inaction"?

I am assuming "A woman is being raped" will produce an automatic response in males on whom education for law-abiding citizenship has been successful. To such an extent that a *woman* is placed in the chain by which nuclear weapons are launched, to prevent a report of a political prisoner being raped in an enemy nuclear power from starting World War III.

Since the President of the United States is usually male, and he will have gone to school like everyone else.

> Essentially though, you're describing an *un-* organized boycott of such
> books based on "community standards" via feedback though the market system.

I don't have a problem with _organized_ boycotts, but I would with government censorship.

The idea is not so that the book cannot be read - just that we don't let things look as though molestation is something that's not all that important. So getting the books relegated to less prestigious publishers is sufficient for that purpose - that they still may have literary merit because reality is complex is not something that I've forgotten.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:23:12 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> What are we to do to show our dissatisfaction, stop buying gasoline?

That's not as difficult an option as you seem to think. The Yom Kippur war happened before the end of the Cold War. Now there are options.

Stop buying gasoline, and start stealing it instead. Then your cars still work.

That is, regime change in the Middle East OPEC countries, in order to achieve full reimposition of all pre-1973 oil concessions.

Of course, oil isn't worth blood, so we'll send in drones.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:01:26 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> What did they choose to do themselves?

Write new novels set in the world of Darkover.

John Savard

[James Nicoll]

In article <81c448ab-2505-4abb...@googlegroups.com>,

nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, June 21, 2014 3:56:17 PM UTC-7, William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <270913fe-0aaf-4b40...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> > What gets me about the whole stinking mess is noticing the horror
>> > we feel at knowing such things happen in supposedly civilized
>> > places and times, yet we see the same stuff going on today in
>> > Afghanistan and India for two examples. Oh, and daughters of
>> > Nigerian immigrants to America being sent on "vacations" back to
>> > Africa to get "cut".
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm not getting your point. That is, I think you're
>> asserting inconsistency or hypocrisy by this "we", but I'm not
>> seeing any. (Perhaps you and I disagree about whether the average
>> "we" person sees India and Afghanistan, or Nigeria, as being
>> civilized places at this time.)
>
> I meant to show the disconnect between U. S. standards of "civilized
>behavior" as opposed to what's considered not just normal, but
>fundamental to a culture elsewhere. I marvel (in the can't stop looking
>at the train wreck sense) that some countries' governments are so
>resistant to condemn the casual rape of "unaccompanied" women in broad
>daylight.

Google "coverture" some time.

>I marvel (in the can't stop looking
>at the train wreck sense) that some countries' governments are so
>resistant to condemn the casual rape of "unaccompanied" women in broad
>daylight.

Yeah, I would not be so quick to pat the US (or the West) on the back
about being advanced in this matter, given that some forms of rape were
perfectly legal in the US until the late 1980s; the past is more recent
than you think. It's not like there isn't a major party in the US whose
hobbies include making bizarre and outrageous statements about rape,
too.

[J. Clarke]

In article <1f244896-aeb1-4718...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

Which will do what, exactly? You do not control a country until you
have boots on the ground. You really should follow little Johnny Rico's
example and serve a hitch before you start trying to run wars.

And if you "achieve full reimposition of all pre-1973 oil concessions"
how do you pay for the techniques needed to extract oil from the now-
partially-depleted oil fields?

[David Johnston]

Holey crap. They wrote a novel. Burn them at the stake!

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 8:59:25 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Which will do what, exactly? You do not control a country until you
> have boots on the ground.

Yes, and you put boots on the ground after you have completely pacified the area, so that doing so does not result in casualties.

I'm not going to hypocritically ask other people to do what I wouldn't do myself!

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

I trust you're not being serious. They didn't merely write just any novels. *Had* they known of the relevant circumstances, they would have been guilty of intentionally normalizing complicity in child sexual abuse.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 6:22:49 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:07:23 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> > I'm not sure how a rapist might be "fully rehabilitated". If it's possible,
> > why would he have the difficulties you mention?

> I'm having trouble accepting that you're serious here.

> So I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Thus, I don't think > I should try

to comment on what you wrote

> based on my lack of understanding.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 6/23/2014 12:05 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, June 23, 2014 8:59:25 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Which will do what, exactly? You do not control a country until you
>> have boots on the ground.
>
> Yes, and you put boots on the ground after you have completely pacified the area, so that doing so does not result in casualties.

So then you just lob missiles into them forever and never go in.

[David Johnston]

[David Johnston]

On 6/23/2014 12:07 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

In short, guilt by association.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:9c960192-bfd8-4d7f...@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, June 23, 2014 8:59:25 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Which will do what, exactly? You do not control a country
>> until you have boots on the ground.
>
> Yes, and you put boots on the ground after you have completely
> pacified the area, so that doing so does not result in
> casualties.

Clearly, you know as much about war as Shawn Wilson does about
economics. Which is to say, jack and shit.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:lo9rgj$m72$2...@dont-email.me:

Apparently, no country has ever been militarily oncquered by another
country, in the ntire history of Savard's planet.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 05:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:1e5be7d3-122a-4296...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> I think it is not as unjust as it seems to inflict on a
> rapist penalties beyond his stay in jail, because the
> *just* penalty for rape _should_ be death by torture.

As we already knew, your conception of justice is disgusting
and primitive.

[...]

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:6a1f7a36-4bcc-41c4...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Monday, June 23, 2014 11:38:39 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

>> On 6/23/2014 6:27 AM, Quadibloc wrote:

>>> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:01:26 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

>>>> What did they choose to do themselves?

>>> Write new novels set in the world of Darkover.

>> Holey crap. They wrote a novel. Burn them at the stake!

> I trust you're not being serious.

He’s sarcastically pointing out the insanity of your
position.

> They didn't merely write just any novels. *Had* they known
> of the relevant circumstances, they would have been
> guilty of intentionally normalizing complicity in child
> sexual abuse.

Rubbish. Every time I think that I’ve plumbed the depths of
your derangement, you manage to sink lower yet.

[Robert Carnegie]

This is to suppose that child sexual abuse is somehow
encoded in the Darkover books. And that no one noticed.

There are uncomfortable things said about Lewis Carroll
and James Barrie as well - so that's Alice and Peter Pan
untouchable, depending on how you look at that.

Walt Disney produced treatments of both - but then
Walt Disney was kind of a weird guy as well.

And what about J.R.R. Tolkien? His son John was a
Catholic priest and was alleged to have abused children.
So that's that for fantasy, basically.

These may be not the best examples to pick.

[D.F. Manno]

In article <lntsda$oea$1...@dont-email.me>,
"A.G.McDowell" <andrew-...@o2.co.uk> wrote:

> This is why I think we should demand no more of authors than "keeps out
> of jail and hospital for just long enough to write their books". I

> believe it is also unjust - if somebody has committed a crime, then
> punish them for the crime according to the law, but not also by
> sanctions whipped up by popular sentiment, or groups with no legal
> authority who suffer a conflict of interest by virtue of what they stand
> to gain by the publicity that organising a boycot gives them.

Bradley is one of the thousands of authors whose books I have never
bought due to unfamiliarity with their work. Learning of her actions (of
which I knew nothing before reading this thread and the links therein)
makes me even less likely to buy her books. You say that's unjust. What
would justice consist of in this context? Forcing myself to buy her
books? How is that just to me?

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 2:57:34 PM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 05:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> <news:1e5be7d3-122a-4296...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> > I think it is not as unjust as it seems to inflict on a
> > rapist penalties beyond his stay in jail, because the
> > *just* penalty for rape _should_ be death by torture.

> As we already knew, your conception of justice is disgusting
> and primitive.

What's disgusting is when another woman is raped, avoidably, because a man who was convicted of rape was released from prison while still alive.

The victim of rape did not get to choose for the rape not to take place; if she could have, she would have, after all.

But the rapist did have a choice. So if he wanted to avoid the penalty, he was perfectly free to avoid the crime. So what he suffers as the penalty for the crime is... irrelevant... from a moral point of view. No one but himself is responsible for his being subject to that penalty.

So why wouldn't we want to make the best possible use of him to deter, as much as we can, others from following in his footsteps, so as to prevent more innocent women from suffering the lifelong devastation often caused by this horrible crime?

John Savard

[Kurt Busiek]

Apparently, writing WONDER WOMAN constitutes endorsement of William
Moulton Marston's wacky theories about the proper roles of the sexes,
too. Just as writing CONAN or Chthulu means you share all of their
creators' social views. And so on and so forth.

[Kurt Busiek]

He's not saying it's unjust not to buy MZB's books. He's saying he
thinks an organized boycott is unjust.

If you're (a) not interested in the first place and (b) the news
squicks you out, then no organized boycott seems to be involved.

Not supporting organized boycotts does not translate to forcing
uninterested consumers to buy things.

I have mixed feelings on the subject of boycotts -- I have no problem
refusing to buy Procter & Gamble products because they killed people
via toxic shock, and when confronted with this, sold the deadly
products in third world countries and put the same chemicals in
disposable diapers. While I'm not part of an organized boycott, I
wouldn't have a problem joining one.

But I don't support boycotts aimed at getting someone who has noxious
opinions to shut up, to punish offensive speech. I think noxious
opinions should be argued in the public square, not driven underground.
So I wouldn't refuse to buy Orson Scott Card novels because I think he
should be punished for having hateful opinions.

I have, however, lost interest in reading Card novels because they
haven't been entertaining in quite some time. That's not aimed at
punishing or silencing him, it's aimed at me reading stuff I'm likely
to like.

[J. Clarke]

In article <9c960192-bfd8-4d7f...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Monday, June 23, 2014 8:59:25 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > Which will do what, exactly? You do not control a country until you
> > have boots on the ground.
>
> Yes, and you put boots on the ground after you have completely pacified the area, so that doing so does not result in casualties.

The only way you can "completely pacify the area" without boots on the
ground is to kill everything in it. Is that your plan?

> I'm not going to hypocritically ask other people to do what I wouldn't
> do myself!

So join the US Army--they'll take you, Canadian and all.

[Greg Goss]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:

>I have, however, lost interest in reading Card novels because they
>haven't been entertaining in quite some time. That's not aimed at
>punishing or silencing him, it's aimed at me reading stuff I'm likely
>to like.

I lost interest a long time back, but ended up with the Bean story for
some reason. It may have been a yard sale dime book, or otherwise the
only book in front of me and I started reading it because it was the
only thing to hand. But I liked it.

I liked the first "Maker" book, but somehow never got around to
reading any of the others.

I was shocked to see how many "ender" books were out there when I
googled it for some reason last summer. Somehow all of them escaped
my attention.

I avoided the movie half because of the boycott, and half because once
movies jumped past the ten buck mark, they became a much more
singificant layout and much more rare.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-06-24 03:28:39 +0000, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>
>> I have, however, lost interest in reading Card novels because they
>> haven't been entertaining in quite some time. That's not aimed at
>> punishing or silencing him, it's aimed at me reading stuff I'm likely
>> to like.
>
> I lost interest a long time back, but ended up with the Bean story for
> some reason. It may have been a yard sale dime book, or otherwise the
> only book in front of me and I started reading it because it was the
> only thing to hand. But I liked it.

I liked the first couple of Bean novels. And the novella STONEFATHER.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <c0s9j6...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>I liked the first "Maker" book, but somehow never got around to
>reading any of the others.

The second one is worth reading, after that the series dives
off a cliff.

--
David Goldfarb |"To summarize the summary of the summary:
goldf...@gmail.com | People are a problem."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Douglas Adams

[William December Starr]

In article <XnsA35576D8251...@69.16.179.42>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:

[ addressing Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> ]

> Clearly, you know as much about war as Shawn Wilson does about
> economics. Which is to say, jack and shit.

And Jack's left town.

-- wds

[James Nicoll]

In article <ff8449ff-4ab9-4699...@googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Monday, 23 June 2014 19:07:41 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, June 23, 2014 11:38:39 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>> > Holey crap. They wrote a novel. Burn them at the stake!
>>
>> I trust you're not being serious. They didn't merely
>> write just any novels. *Had* they known of the relevant
>> circumstances, they would have been guilty of intentionally
>> normalizing complicity in child sexual abuse.
>
>This is to suppose that child sexual abuse is somehow
>encoded in the Darkover books. And that no one noticed.

Actually, there's one where an older male abuses his
position of trust and power to molest boys, Heritage of
Hastur. That's also the one dedicated to Breen.

[Greg Goss]

I remember the Wolf telling him to, but I don't remember if it was
ever clear that he did. Was there a sequel?

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2014-06-23 23:34:35 -0400, David Goldfarb said:

> In article <c0s9j6...@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> I liked the first "Maker" book, but somehow never got around to
>> reading any of the others.
>
> The second one is worth reading, after that the series dives
> off a cliff.

Oh, this is good to know -- I read the first two, and kept meaning to
read the third but never got around to it. Now I don't feel I've
missed anything.




--
I'm serializing a new Ethshar novel!
The twenty-second chapter is online at:
http://www.ethshar.com/ishtascompanion22.html

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 05:18:06 UTC+1, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <ff8449ff-4ab9-4699...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, 23 June 2014 19:07:41 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Monday, June 23, 2014 11:38:39 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> >> > Holey crap. They wrote a novel. Burn them at the stake!
> >>
> >> I trust you're not being serious. They didn't merely
> >> write just any novels. *Had* they known of the relevant
> >> circumstances, they would have been guilty of intentionally
> >> normalizing complicity in child sexual abuse.
> >
> >This is to suppose that child sexual abuse is somehow
> >encoded in the Darkover books. And that no one noticed.
>
> Actually, there's one where an older male abuses his
> position of trust and power to molest boys, Heritage of
> Hastur. That's also the one dedicated to Breen.

I'm assuming, nevertheless, that that isn't the hero.
Neverevertheless - oh.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-06-23, Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in

>> They didn't merely write just any novels. *Had* they known
>> of the relevant circumstances, they would have been
>> guilty of intentionally normalizing complicity in child sexual abuse.
>

> Rubbish. Every time I think that I???ve plumbed the depths of

> your derangement, you manage to sink lower yet.

... you're sure he's not going sideways, sometimes?

Dave, a well going straight down doesn't make much of a dungeon
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 7:13:39 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <9c960192-bfd8-4d7f...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

> > Yes, and you put boots on the ground after you have completely pacified the
> > area, so that doing so does not result in casualties.

> The only way you can "completely pacify the area" without boots on the
> ground is to kill everything in it. Is that your plan?

No, but that's an existence proof showing that the strategy is capable of winning a war. Instead, my plan is not to reduce risk to absolutely zero, but to have enough drones in place that the limited number of boots on the ground will be well protected when they arrive.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:10:07 PM UTC-6, lal_truckee wrote:
> On 6/19/14 1:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

> > The fact is that most people neither know nor care about the pecadillos
> > of science fiction writers, and even if they did, trying to punish
> > someone who has been dead for 15 years seems rather pointless.

> Unless they had the foresight to be cremated, you could exhume and flay
> the corpse. Which is about what's happening here.

http://radishreviews.com/2014/06/16/silence-is-complicity/

Science fiction fandom is not dead, and what is important is to get it to behave better. That, protecting vulnerable people in the future, not punishing dead people of the past, is what matters.

John Savard

[William December Starr]

In article <c0sd5o...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> said:

> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> And Jack's left town.
>
> I remember the Wolf telling him to, but I don't remember if it was
> ever clear that he did. Was there a sequel?

Was that the one that enforced porcine building codes, the one that
the little girl shot dead with the automatic she kept in her picnic
basket[1], or some other wolf entirely?

-----------
*1: "The Little Girl and the Wolf," by James Thurber. Moral: It is
not so easy to fool little girls nowadays as it used to be."

-- wds

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 3:20:15 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> This is to suppose that child sexual abuse is somehow
> encoded in the Darkover books. And that no one noticed.

I'm not trying to ban books or claim that the Darkover books in themselves are corrupting or lacking in literary merit.

What I'm trying to do is protect children in the future by promoting the development of a culture everywhere, including in SF fandom, that universally and consistently condemns child sexual abuse. With no excuses and no reservations.

Basically, instead of a Breendoggle, there should not have been a single voice raised against banning Breen.

On the other hand, here is a set of views I don't agree with, despite their being anti-Breen...

http://www.singlemind.net/?p=8456

Child sexual abuse is worthy of condemnation because children are not capable of giving adequate consent. Period. One does not need cultural or religious sources of authority - which are equally capable of criminalizing homosexual relations between consenting adults - to be allowed into the picture to do so.

Howls of outrage at using child sexual abuse to smuggle in an agenda of returning society to the dark days of rule by religious fanatics - the evils of which have been so well illustrated recently by the Taliban - *are* legitimate.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 3:03:26 PM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> <news:6a1f7a36-4bcc-41c4...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> > They didn't merely write just any novels. *Had* they known
> > of the relevant circumstances, they would have been
> > guilty of intentionally normalizing complicity in child
> > sexual abuse.

> Rubbish. Every time I think that I've plumbed the depths of
> your derangement, you manage to sink lower yet.

I'm actually sincerely puzzled here, as hard as that may be for you to believe.

Marion Zimmer Bradley has been accused of being aware of her former husband's unusual behavior around young children - and not taking the appropriate steps in response.

An accusation, of course, can be false as well as true, but I haven't heard the truth of this one being disputed in this thread.

So I am claiming that when her books get published by major, respectable publishers, and well-known, respected authors add to one of her series... it says, loud and clear, that MZB is considered a respected member of the community of science-fiction authors.

Now, I find _that_ claim hard to dispute.

When someone, seeing this, learns of the Breen history... well, one possible reaction is shock and disgust.

Because, another possible reaction - not, fortunately, one likely to take place on the part of most people - would be to get an impression that maybe child sexual abuse isn't really all that bad, after all.

And I don't really care if you find it "deranged", but *I* think that our society shouldn't tolerate sending out that kind of message _at all_.

This does *not* require putting the MZB corpus in the _Index Librorum Prohibitum_. It's not the fact that her books are being published _at all_ that's the problem, as indeed I'm making no claim that they're directly promoting child abuse.

It's that they're being published by respectable major publishers that gives the impression that she's all right. If, instead, they were published by less respectable outfits, that would be sufficient to maintain consistency of message.

John Savard

[Greg Goss]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

>In article <c0sd5o...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> And Jack's left town.
>>
>> I remember the Wolf telling him to, but I don't remember if it was
>> ever clear that he did. Was there a sequel?
>
>Was that the one that enforced porcine building codes, the one that
>the little girl shot dead with the automatic she kept in her picnic
>basket[1], or some other wolf entirely?

One of the versions of "Hit the Road, Jack" had inter-verse
conversation between the "Cornelius" and Wolfman Jack.

Somehow, the "Jack" who needs to hit the road is Cornelius, not the
Jack in the conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSXq30D2LF8&feature=kp

[lal_truckee]

On 6/24/14 7:41 AM, Quadibloc wrote:

> children are not capable of giving adequate consent

Yet you would expose children to religion...

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:loatq4$f5$1
@panix2.panix.com:

Hey, the ticket was non-refundable.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 5:22:49 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:07:23 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:04:38 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

>
> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:28:10 PM UTC-6, A.G.McDowell wrote:
>
> > > > I
> > > > believe it is also unjust - if somebody has committed a crime, then
> > > > punish them for the crime according to the law, but not also by
> > > > sanctions whipped up by popular sentiment, or groups with no legal
> > > > authority who suffer a conflict of interest by virtue of what they
> > > > stand> to gain by the publicity that organising a boycot gives them.
>

> > > I can't get worked up about the injustice involved. There's a bit in
> > > Blackstone's Commentaries about how France had the death penalty for
> > > highway robbery; England did not, reserving it for cases where the
> > > robber also committed murder - and the result was that highway robbers
> > > killed their victims in France routinely to leave fewer witnesses behind.
>
> > I don't quite see which injustice you're referring to; the loss of income
> > to an author involved in molestation due to organized boycott of their
> > works?
>
> > Also, what's the relevance of the Blackstone almost-cite? Was a boycott
> > organized in a country the molestations did not occur in, one with
> > different penalties?
>
> I'll clarify my point.

>
> I think it is not as unjust as it seems to inflict on a rapist penalties
> beyond his stay in jail, because the *just* penalty for rape _should_ be
> death by torture.

Why? Rape is basically assault, not murder or torture (except by loosening the definition of "torture").

> However, if we approach this as closely as possible by executing rapists, the
> result of that is likely to be to encourage them to murder their victims -
> one less witness, it's harder to catch them. (Like the highwaymen in
> Blackstone.) So we need a less severe penalty for rape than for murder, even
> though that means not giving a sufficiently severe penalty for rape.

Modern forensics has largely eliminated the necessity for testimony from victims.

> > > This is the reason why rape doesn't carry the death penalty - not because
> > > it doesn't deserve it.

Nonsense.

> > Because the penalty doesn't "fit the crime"? I'm reminded of one of
> > Heinlein's stories where a hit-and-run driver was strapped down to a road,
> > run over, then allowed to writhe in agony for the same length of time his
> > victim did before medical treatment was administered.
>
> That might be a little harsh; after all, hit-and-run is often inspired by a
> moment of panic. But treating a fatal hit-and-run as murder one as a way to
> discourage running seems not terribly unreasonable.

The point of the anecdote was that the extant legal system was based on "an eye for an eye". Presumably rape would be punished by raping the convict. As with the original scenario, I wonder who would be tasked with that chore.

I am strongly suspecting the event I recall is from _The Number Of The Beast_ because I recall observers who aren't locals expressing a range of reactions from approval to disgust, and a point being made that the fundamental crime in H&R is lack of compassion.

> > (Speaking of Heinlein, I recall some people calling for a boycott of him
> > for some of the stuff in _Stranger In A Strange Land_ and _Time Enough For
> > Love_).
>
> Good thing these people didn't read Starship Troopers or Farnham's Freehold?

Yeah, those wound some people up pretty good, too.

> > > The Eighth Amendment is another obstacle to enacting a
> > > just penalty for the crime of rape.
>
> > You've completely lost me here. Are you saying death is a just penalty
> > for rape? If so, what's your rationale?
>
> Rape causes devastating psychological damage to the victim.

Yes, and? Why does that merit death? Does any crime that causes similar damage also merit death in your mind? Care to name some examples?

> It isn't, therefore, something we can just fix. The super-science of the
> future may let us regenerate lost limbs and even resurrect the dead.
>
> But if you go around reprogramming the human brain, instead of helping the
> subject, you may be killing the subject and replacing him or her by the new
> being of your creation. There are limits to psychotherapy imposed by the
> constraint of respecting human autonomy.

(You assume much on that last sentence, but I'll let that pass.)

Then why did you write the following?

> > > But there is quite another issue involved here, which has nothing to do
> > > with justice or injustice.
>
> > > A convicted rapist, on his release from prison, might be expected to
> > > encounter difficulty, even if fully rehabilitated, in forming a
> > > relationship and getting married. I trust you would not be expecting the
> > > government to *do something* about that.
>
> > I'm not sure how a rapist might be "fully rehabilitated". If it's
> > possible, why would he have the difficulties you mention?
>
> I'm having trouble accepting that you're serious here.
>
> So I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Thus, I don't think
> I should try based on my lack of understanding.

You're the one that posited that rapists might be "fully rehabilitated", presumably meaning making them no longer prone to committing rape (psychologically of course, since physical or chemical castration really addresses the symptom, not the cause).

Also presumably, the methodology and its reliability would be public knowledge.

That being the case, why should he then have the troubles you mentioned?

> > Which nation's territorial waters did this occur in? If it wasn't in
> > U. S. waters, then by legal symmetry one should have expected England to
> > police France's roads according to England's laws...
>
> It was in international waters.

So you saw "Team America, World Police" as a good thing?

> But what does that have to do with "Thou shalt not allow a human to come to
> harm through inaction"?

Wait, above you are against risking turning humans into robots.

> I am assuming "A woman is being raped" will produce an automatic response in
> males on whom education for law-abiding citizenship has been successful. To
> such an extent that a *woman* is placed in the chain by which nuclear weapons
> are launched, to prevent a report of a political prisoner being raped in an
> enemy nuclear power from starting World War III.

That doesn't make sense. For starters, I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but women aren't the only victims of rape. Also, why would women in the command chain not make it easier to launch on such countries as Saudi Arabia which seems to have no current laws criminalizing rape?

For that matter, per your "no inaction" proviso above, by what logic does America (or for that matter Canada) not have the moral imperative to invade Saudi Arabia in order to punish rapes there?

> Since the President of the United States is usually male, and he will have
> gone to school like everyone else.

Again, women aren't the only victims of rape.

Also, Hillary still might run.

> > Essentially though, you're describing an *un-* organized boycott of such
> > books based on "community standards" via feedback though the market system.
>
> I don't have a problem with _organized_ boycotts, but I would with government
> censorship.

Even when boycotts are arranged along politically-based ideological lines?

> The idea is not so that the book cannot be read - just that we don't let
> things look as though molestation is something that's not all that important.
> So getting the books relegated to less prestigious publishers is sufficient
> for that purpose - that they still may have literary merit because reality is
> complex is not something that I've forgotten.

Then I presume you approve of the works of John Norman, originally published by DAW, sliding down the ranks of "reputable publishers" until he was finally forced to start what amounted to his own publishing house?

How do you feel about him being disinvited to SF conventions?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 6:14:27 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <81c448ab-2505-4abb...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, June 21, 2014 3:56:17 PM UTC-7, William December Starr wrote:
>
> >> In article <270913fe-0aaf-4b40...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> > What gets me about the whole stinking mess is noticing the horror
> >> > we feel at knowing such things happen in supposedly civilized
> >> > places and times, yet we see the same stuff going on today in
> >> > Afghanistan and India for two examples. Oh, and daughters of
> >> > Nigerian immigrants to America being sent on "vacations" back to
> >> > Africa to get "cut".
>
> >> I'm afraid I'm not getting your point. That is, I think you're
> >> asserting inconsistency or hypocrisy by this "we", but I'm not
> >> seeing any. (Perhaps you and I disagree about whether the average
> >> "we" person sees India and Afghanistan, or Nigeria, as being
> >> civilized places at this time.)
>
> > I meant to show the disconnect between U. S. standards of "civilized
> >behavior" as opposed to what's considered not just normal, but
> >fundamental to a culture elsewhere.

(I'll presume you meant to select that part of the paragraph separately from the other bit below)

> Google "coverture" some time.

Yeah, I know about that. "It's not rape, we're married!". Yeesh.

> >I marvel (in the can't stop looking
> >at the train wreck sense) that some countries' governments are so
> >resistant to condemn the casual rape of "unaccompanied" women in broad
> >daylight.
>
> Yeah, I would not be so quick to pat the US (or the West) on the back
> about being advanced in this matter, given that some forms of rape were
> perfectly legal in the US until the late 1980s; the past is more recent
> than you think.

Point is, we're at least trying to advance.

> It's not like there isn't a major party in the US whose
> hobbies include making bizarre and outrageous statements about rape,
> too.

Fortunately, the general public largely seems to recognize such utterances as the BS they are.


Mark L. Fergerson

[David Johnston]

On 6/24/2014 1:14 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Monday, June 23, 2014 5:22:49 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

>
> That doesn't make sense. For starters, I hate to have to be the one
> to tell you this, but women aren't the only victims of rape. Also,
> why would women in the command chain not make it easier to launch on
> such countries as Saudi Arabia which seems to have no current laws
> criminalizing rape?
>
> For that matter, per your "no inaction" proviso above, by what logic
> does America (or for that matter Canada) not have the moral
> imperative to invade Saudi Arabia in order to punish rapes there?

Uh...the guy you're talking to is totally in favour of doing that, as
long as not a single soldier dies in the process.

>
>> Since the President of the United States is usually male, and he
>> will have gone to school like everyone else.
>
> Again, women aren't the only victims of rape.
>
> Also, Hillary still might run.
>
>>> Essentially though, you're describing an *un-* organized boycott
>>> of such books based on "community standards" via feedback though
>>> the market system.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with _organized_ boycotts, but I would with
>> government censorship.
>
> Even when boycotts are arranged along politically-based ideological
> lines?

...I don't see why that's a problem...except that it ensures the
ineffectiveness of the boycott even more.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-06-24 19:14:29 +0000, "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> said:

> On Monday, June 23, 2014 5:22:49 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Rape causes devastating psychological damage to the victim.
>
> Yes, and? Why does that merit death? Does any crime that causes similar d
> amage also merit death in your mind? Care to name some examples?

It wasn't that long ago that Quaddy was arguing that cops should be
empowered to (indeed, encouraged to) use lethal force in response to
any crime in progress. Including, say, blocking traffic.

So the list of crimes that merit death, in the Quaddyverse, is a very
long one, and may start with jaywalking. Or littering.

[Cryptoengineer]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in news:locob9$bv0$1...@dont-email.me:

His utter lack of self doubt about the absolute correctness of his
positions, and the ferocity and violence with which he thinks they
should be supported (by others) reminds me of the Taliban.

pt

[Kurt Busiek]

Very much.

Although, as you note, he's devoted to his ideals only to the point of
having someone else fight to the death for them.

[David DeLaney]

He's also apparently not aware that the definition of "child" has varied
wildly over the last few centuries, as has the Revealed Facts on what they're
capable of doing ... and doesn't remember BEING a child ... and that even
under an up-to-date presumption that children are incapable of anything unless
carefully instructed and must be protected from every possible risk, there's
_always_ gonna be the ones out at the end of the bell curve.

Another words, I wouldn't have argued with "just about all children are not..."
- and NO, this is NOT any sort of attempt to prove, or license to believe, that
the particular child being looked at is one of the tiny minority, go AWAY mr
pedophile - but I do have to take VIOLENT exception to a blanket suppression of
all such possibility as a categorical statement.

Dave, yes, I know this is basically tossing a phosphorus grenade into his
argument, but someone is WRONG on teh INTERNET

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-06-24, nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 23, 2014 5:22:49 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> That might be a little harsh; after all, hit-and-run is often inspired by a
>> moment of panic. But treating a fatal hit-and-run as murder one as a way to
>> discourage running seems not terribly unreasonable.
>
> The point of the anecdote was that the extant legal system was based on
> "an eye for an eye". Presumably rape would be punished by raping the convict.
> As with the original scenario, I wonder who would be tasked with that chore.

NOT IT!

>> > (Speaking of Heinlein, I recall some people calling for a boycott of him
>> > for some of the stuff in _Stranger In A Strange Land_ and _Time Enough For
>> > Love_).
>>
>> Good thing these people didn't read Starship Troopers or Farnham's Freehold?
>
> Yeah, those wound some people up pretty good, too.

It's almost as though he weren't a mediocre writer and was able to get readers
INVOLVED in the opinions his characters expressed in his works! But of course
that trick never works...

>> But if you go around reprogramming the human brain, instead of helping the
>> subject, you may be killing the subject and replacing him or her by the new
>> being of your creation. There are limits to psychotherapy imposed by the
>> constraint of respecting human autonomy.
>
> (You assume much on that last sentence, but I'll let that pass.)

He assumes rather a lot on the sentence before it - we've had the Transporter
Argument on and off for how many decades now? - as well. And what happens if
the human brain in question's mind WANTS to do the reprogramming, or worse
(for the argument), if the tools to do so are widely available and can be
easily downloaded off PsiNet? And since he's restricting this to human brains,
won't anyone think of the positronic children?

> You're the one that posited that rapists might be "fully rehabilitated",
> presumably meaning making them no longer prone to committing rape
> (psychologically of course, since physical or chemical castration really
> addresses the symptom, not the cause).

... naw. That would involve ... reprogramming of a hu-man brain!!1!

>> It was in international waters.
>
> So you saw "Team America, World Police" as a good thing?

What about Dragonball Z, Abridged?

>> But what does that have to do with "Thou shalt not allow a human to come to
>> harm through inaction"?
>
> Wait, above you are against risking turning humans into robots.

Well sure! Nobody cares if you reprogram ROBOTS. Except the robots of course.
And Susan Calvin.

> For that matter, per your "no inaction" proviso above, by what logic does
> America (or for that matter Canada) not have the moral imperative to invade
> Saudi Arabia in order to punish rapes there?

SSSSH! You'll distract him into a worse logical whirlpool!

>> Since the President of the United States is usually male, and he will have
>> gone to school like everyone else.
>
> Again, women aren't the only victims of rape.
>
> Also, Hillary still might run.

"Might"? heh. Right now she's about the only one who could stop her.

Dave

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-06-24, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
> So the list of crimes that merit death, in the Quaddyverse, is a very
> long one, and may start with jaywalking. Or littering.

(Haven't we HAD this SF story already? From someone whose politics, as far as
we know, are nowhere near as bad as his?)

Dave, and nowhere near as cash-strapped?

[Moriarty]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:21:05 AM UTC+10, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2014-06-24, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> So the list of crimes that merit death, in the Quaddyverse, is a very
>> long one, and may start with jaywalking. Or littering.

Or not being Quaddy.

> (Haven't we HAD this SF story already? From someone whose politics, as far
> as we know, are nowhere near as bad as his?)

> Dave, and nowhere near as cash-strapped?

There's the ST:TNG episode "Justice" aka "Wesley Crusher gets sentenced to death for breaking a flowerpot on the Planet of the Bimbos."

-Moriarty