Divsions in the Queer community
beth
: I have recently become aware of The 'NB' acronym at the bottom of some
: advertisements to denote that 'No Bisexuals' would be welcome, only
: 'Lesbians'.
: I feel that this kind of discrimination and exclusion is detrimental to
: our community as a whole, and is a bad kind of nitpicking.
: I can only speak from my experience in the Bisexual community and where
: that overlaps into the rest of queerdom.
[stuff about people cruising deleted]
: The queer community has gotten a lot of mileage out of a strong
: seperation from the mainstream heterosexual community in the last twenty
: or thirty years, but I think that we must eventually come around to
: rejoin those people that have come to accept us, and redraw the lines.
: I think that the bisexual community is in a perfect position to do this,
: as our lines are drawn in such muted, grey, felt-tip pens.
: I will absolutely support anyone's right to whatever sort of
: restrictions they would like to put on any gathering. I will also
: support my right to kindly and respectfully say that I disagree, and
: offer other alternatives.
: Think of this; what if 'NB' stood for 'No Blacks'?
i'm not sure what kind of ads you're talking about here (from the paragraph
above, one might infer that you're talking about rap groups or clubs or
other gathering-type things, but i'm not sure). i've heard people complain
about the "NB" abbreviation in personal ads placed by women who don't want
to date bisexual women. i respect their right to do that, because you can
pick your friends (and your nose) in any manner you wish (however, it should
be noted that any lesbian who doesn't want to date bisexual women is sort of
missing out). i also think it's ok for people to place personal ads
specifying race, appearance, or whatever, if that's really what's
important to them (regardless of how misplaced i think their priorities
are, not that what i think matters because i'm not going to respond to
personal ads anyway).
i think support groups, nightclubs, and other more public or
community-oriented events are a more complicated issue. i think it's very
important for the queer community to organize across the line that exists
between gays and bisexuals (i really like your "muted, grey, felt-tip
pens" characterization of that line, but it's still a line). i think that
excluding bisexuals is a generally harmful practice in terms of queer
unity and raises a lot of bad feelings. on the other hand, i think there
are certain issues which some might characterize as "lesbian issues" or "gay
issues" or "bisexual issues" as opposed to more general "queer issues"
(i'm not sure i agree with such distinctions, but i see that one could
reasonably make them in some situations). for example, some people at
amherst have started a group for men exploring sexuality issues. they
welcome gay, bisexual, and questioning men (straight men too, i'm sure,
although it's sort of an offshoot of the lbga). they don't welcome women,
because they feel a need for an all-male environment in which to discuss
their concerns. that seems pretty reasonable to me. similarly, if a group
of lesbians want to create an all-lesbian environment, or a group of
queer women of color want to create a space for women of color, or
whatever, that seems reasonable even though i might be excluded from such
groups.
i think it's important to recognize that being excluded from one group or one
space does not constitute exclusion from the entire queer community. queer
identity can have various levels of specificness. i think it's important
not to begrudge gays and lesbians their separate spaces if they feel a need
for such spaces, as long as they are willing to form a larger
community/movement which includes bisexuals and to participate in
organizations and things which are open to bisexuals (in addition to whatever
separate spaces they might need). ideally, everyone could be included in
everything, but most people seem to experience some need to be surrounded by
people who are "like them" and some gay/lesbian people feel that bisexuals
are not sufficiently "like them" to be included in such groups. that's kind
of regretable, but it's not necessarily the end of the world and i think we
accomplish more if we just respect that and try to create dialogue and
openness without demanding that there be no separate homosexual space
within the queer movement....
: ObBiFluff: *hugs* to all who read this far.
: I hope that this will not turn into a flame thread, but instead a forum
: to discuss compromise and solve all the world's problems in one swift
: stroke. :)
the really long reply i wrote above hardly qualifies as a swift stroke, but
it's certainly a worthy aspiration......
--
Beth
bsli...@unix.amherst.edu
"Mother Nature, Father Time, Used to be good friends of mine. But now we've
put them in a home, filed under "uses unknown" - Pop Will Eat Itself
Jeff Moore & Francine Turner
that I have been having. To avoid repeating anything that was said to
me in personal mail, I am posting the paraphrased summary of my own
response, and if someone would like to take the other side of the issue,
I would welcome a lively, public discussion.
I have recently become aware of The 'NB' acronym at the bottom of some
advertisements to denote that 'No Bisexuals' would be welcome, only
'Lesbians'.
I feel that this kind of discrimination and exclusion is detrimental to
our community as a whole, and is a bad kind of nitpicking.
I can only speak from my experience in the Bisexual community and where
that overlaps into the rest of queerdom.
I am not insensitive to the fact that many horny guys would (and do)
cruse bisexual meeting places in search of HotBiBabes to fulfill their
fantasies, and this is not a problem that can be swept under the rug. I
am not excluding female opportunists, but they are usually much easier
to deal with based on style.
When running bisexual raps, conferences, and bi-social gatherings, I am
able to work from a position of strength in numbers to avoid
inappropriate activity through peer pressure. If someone comes in
clearly crusing, in an inappropriate venue, we have never been unable to
let that person know that they are not appreciated and will be ignored
if the behavior continues. I'm sure that one of these days, I will
witness someone who doesn't get it, and the situation will be escalated,
even to ejecting the offending party. I hope that this will never
happen, but I am prepared if needed.
The queer community has gotten a lot of mileage out of a strong
seperation from the mainstream heterosexual community in the last twenty
or thirty years, but I think that we must eventually come around to
rejoin those people that have come to accept us, and redraw the lines.
I think that the bisexual community is in a perfect position to do this,
as our lines are drawn in such muted, grey, felt-tip pens.
I will absolutely support anyone's right to whatever sort of
restrictions they would like to put on any gathering. I will also
support my right to kindly and respectfully say that I disagree, and
offer other alternatives.
Think of this; what if 'NB' stood for 'No Blacks'?
ObBiFluff: *hugs* to all who read this far.
I hope that this will not turn into a flame thread, but instead a forum
to discuss compromise and solve all the world's problems in one swift
stroke. :)
Jeff.
--
----------------------------------------- /\/\/\
-- The Avid Ones - Jeff and Francine -- |AVID|
----------------------------------------- \_Bi_/
thedavid
I would have been very upset if a "militant group" made a political
thing out of my Dad's funeral, because except in a very very general
way--"life hurts & then you die"--there was nothing political about it.
I would however have welcomed a variey of teeshirts or buttons, and if
there'd been more cruising on it wouldn't have been so damn gloomy.
(Dad, by the way, was "gay-affirmative" in public and in real-life
--and he didn't even object to people of whatever "orientation"
cruising at church things as long as they, say, didn't suck face during
the sermon.)
On the other hand IMHO it'd be damn inappropriate for our Community
Center to sponsor an "event" that pointedly excluded anyone in Queerdom,
including those straights who supports and stand with us. Yet if the
Center were to lease or donate some of it's space to the "Anti-Lesbian
League Of Bisexual Virgins" or whatever I'd say it's a _valid_ use and
they have a right to meet--but I would vigorously protest against their
views. As I put it during the hubbub about a local KKK march, "they
have a right to wear their sheets--and we have a right to throw bottles."
The "big" Queer bar around here, the Hippo, varies in "composition"
from night to night or even hour to hour, but clearly both sexes go
there to hang out. This means that sometimes the cutest person in the
is female--but I'll be goddamn if I'll let that stop me _if she shows
any interest in interacting with me_. My usual thing, once we start
talking, is to let her know about my bisexuality & that I find her
attractive (usually they've already guessed) and then to ask, in
whatever way seems most appropriate to the tone of our conversation
if she "does" men. If she says NO! I step back & drop that subject;
if she says "I was _married_ once" with a "yucked-out" expression I
ask of that face was specifically for her ex or if it's general; and
if she says "Yes, I do & you're cute!" I say "Do you live close by?"
It all depends. I would think twice about cruising an _exclusively_
lesbian bar or a specifically women's event--just as I won't approach
a whole bunch of women by the pool tables unless I feel like losing
some money!
If you're not asleep yet I guess the point here if the Hippo
or the GLCCB had an "NB" sign out front I'd be momentarily tempted
to torch the place. But a knitting circle can forbid whomever they
damn please. And if people really HATE being cruised they should
simply stay home!
Since the original poster touched on broad issues I gave a broad
answer. If this makes any sense let me know.
DAVID
B.J. Evans
Jeff Moore & Francine Turner <Jeff...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I will sometimes accompany a lesbian friend to a bar near me, that is very
>much
>a Lesbian Bar (capitals are mine). Usually I am the only male there. If
>there
>is another male there, it is usually the security guard that works there. In
>this space, I do not infringe on anyone's right to do anything they want,
>and I
>do not try to pick up anybody. I have danced with patrons on occasion, but
>only after they have asked me. I enjoy these times out because I am having a
>good time with my lesbian friend, shooting some pool, dancing my ass off, and
>generaly loving life. Not everthing has to be a potential sexual experience.
>
>In summary, I am perfectly willing to give anyone their space, and abide by
>the
>rules of the venue. (lapsing into Michael Palin) What I object to is the
>automatic assumption that I am an inferior! (end of lapse)
To not have to have specifically set-aside spaces is a very nice ideal, but
lets be honest, folks... that world out there does not come with a disclaimer
making sure everything is fair and fluffy. IMHE, a lot of my women friends
talk about just needing somewhere free of males from time to time. I fully
respect that - it's not an ideal solution, but the reality is that it's
needed. In fact, when I've had to put up with het males all day, I could
use some space without them :X).
B.
Ben Evans (bje...@cam.ac.uk), Wolfson Court, Cambridge | \ /
"It's been such a long time since my better days" (Merchant)| \ /
"Nobody here really understands me" (Weaver) | /~~~~~~\
| / \
Muffy Barkocy
In article <3i353n$5...@amhux3.amherst.edu> bsli...@unix.amherst.edu (beth) writes:
>be noted that any lesbian who doesn't want to date bisexual women is sort of
>missing out).
Missing out on what? Are they "missing out" more by this than by any
other criteria, such as not dating men, or people with piercings, or
blondes, or computer programmers?
>on the other hand, i think there
>are certain issues which some might characterize as "lesbian issues" or "gay
>issues" or "bisexual issues" as opposed to more general "queer issues"
Such as? In particular, I'd like to hear what you think are uniquely
bisexual issues. I've been trying to come up with some for a while with
little success...*smile*...
>i think it's important to recognize that being excluded from one group or one
>space does not constitute exclusion from the entire queer community.
Yes, not from the "entire community." However, many little bits of
exclusion can add up. Where do you draw the line and feel excluded?
When you can only go to half the "community" events? A quarter? A
tenth? None? Particularly when the purposes of the events you are
excluded from are of concern to you as well?
Muffy
--
Muffy Barkocy ** mu...@fish.com ** http://fish.com/muffy.html
~And if I look like your problem/you look like a/broken promise to me/
I got 16 roses/on Valentine's Day/and not one word/not one word/not
one word/from you~ - disappear fear
Lynn
>advertisements to denote that 'No Bisexuals' would be welcome, only
>'Lesbians'.
What kind of advertisements are you talking about? Personals or clubs
or what?
Lynn (And where?)
Benjamin Edelman
: In article <3i353n$5...@amhux3.amherst.edu> bsli...@unix.amherst.edu (beth) writes:
: >be noted that any lesbian who doesn't want to date bisexual women is sort of
: >missing out).
: Missing out on what? Are they "missing out" more by this than by any
: other criteria, such as not dating men, or people with piercings, or
: blondes, or computer programmers?
Missing out on some really cool people :-)
: >on the other hand, i think there
: >are certain issues which some might characterize as "lesbian issues" or "gay
: >issues" or "bisexual issues" as opposed to more general "queer issues"
: Such as? In particular, I'd like to hear what you think are uniquely
: bisexual issues. I've been trying to come up with some for a while with
: little success...*smile*...
I've always thought the feelings of exclusion (or real exclusion) from
queer groups that can arrive from having a motos lover was a specifically
bisexual issue (tho I do suppose it's a straight issue as well, perhaps
for different reasons).
And the attitude among some phobes that bisexual (men) are responsible
for bringing AIDS into the "straight population".
Do you have a different take on these, muffy?
--ben
--
"Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of
necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a
dialectic" -- Audre Lorde
bede...@envirolink.org Benjamin Edelman bede...@cais.com
Muffy Barkocy
In article <3i2bs2$7...@clarknet.clark.net> thedavid (Mother Of Jack)@clark.net () writes:
>>On the other hand IMHO it'd be damn inappropriate for our Community
>Center to sponsor an "event" that pointedly excluded anyone in Queerdom,
>including those straights who supports and stand with us.
Why, exactly, do you think it would be inappropriate?
>Yet if the
>Center were to lease or donate some of it's space to the "Anti-Lesbian
>League Of Bisexual Virgins" or whatever I'd say it's a _valid_ use and
>they have a right to meet--but I would vigorously protest against their
>views. As I put it during the hubbub about a local KKK march, "they
>have a right to wear their sheets--and we have a right to throw bottles."
"Throw bottles?" Isn't that rather an excessive response, physical
violence against marchers? Would you object if they did the same thing?
David E. Drinkwater-Lunn
Moore & Francine Turner) wrote:
Omitted lengthy discussion to which I give my silent approval. Yes, we can
agree without saying so. And I think I agree with both sides pretty well.
Isn"t that bisexual. *grins*
> In summary, I am perfectly willing to give anyone their space, & abide by the
> rules of the venue. (lapsing into Michael Palin) What I object to is the
> automatic assumption that I am an inferior! (end of lapse)
I DO sorta have a problem with this. After all, just because someone
needs/wants their own space, that does not make you inferior. Perhaps just
undesirable to them. (Yeah, it"s a copout, but it"s an important cop-out.
You certainly do not need to burden yourself with infferiority, jut because
someone doesn"t like you. Anthough I think you do have the right to be
respectfully disliked, at least at first.)
What I really wanted to add to all this is that both sides have valid
reasons for wanting what they want. And those reasons should be considered
somewhat carefully. Some of their reasons will be "bad" reasons, though,
and those have to be out in the open, too, so we can discuss them fairly.
Like, um, I think it was Ciaran, said, there are many possible
interpretations of any commmunication, and it is very easy to hit on the
worst first. (Bis are promiscuous, can't be trusted, etc (hey, and those
are the good reasons ... *snicker*)) So we need to have a chance to refute
unreasonable cliams.
Life is just very complicated.
> *hugs* to all that want them (grumblegrumble)
Here, you have some, too. *hugs*
David
--
David E. Drinkwater-Lunn, de...@cornell.edu, Demodave on IRC,
http://pooh.sozwiss.uni-konstanz.de/gblf.de/people/people.html on WWW
Wandering in wonder in the wilderness of Goettingen, Germany,
Physically displaced from the Internet. Chronically disturbed.
And they say that the Internet is only a virtual reality...
... if all those people are so virtual, how can they feel so real...
Soon to be chilling in the northern city of Minneapolis, Minnesota
Happy to hear from you! :-)
Muffy Barkocy
In article <3ilkcb$l...@decaxp.harvard.edu> nfma...@scws8.harvard.edu (Nyani-Iisha Martin) writes:
>Muffy Barkocy (mu...@bi.fish.com) wrote:
>: In article <3i2bs2$7...@clarknet.clark.net> thedavid (Mother Of Jack)@clark.net () writes:
>: >>On the other hand IMHO it'd be damn inappropriate for our Community
>: >Center to sponsor an "event" that pointedly excluded anyone in Queerdom,
>: >including those straights who supports and stand with us.
>: Why, exactly, do you think it would be inappropriate?
>_I_ would think that it would be inappropriate for the same reason that
>the Black people who tried to get rid of White volunteers in the Civil
>Rights Movement were wrong, or the instructors of feminism classes who
>won't let men into their classes are wrong; if someone is *for* us, why
>demand that they be *of* us?
That's a different issue, though. My question is what makes it
inappropriate for a community center to sponsor an event that excludes
"anyone in Queerdom" - for example, a lesbian-only dance (which would
exclude gay men).
>(As an aside, which you, of course, have the perfect right to ignore, but
>please don't flame it: why did you ask that, Muffy? Did you want a more
>specific answer, or do you disagree with the statement that it would be
>inapproriate? This is just curiosity.)
I wanted a more specific answer, which is what I asked for. If I
disagreed, I would have simply disagreed and stated my reasons. In
fact, I'm not sure what I think of it - I generally am against exclusion
of any sort, but I've also heard some good arguments in favor of, for
example, women-only spaces.
>: >views. As I put it during the hubbub about a local KKK march, "they
>: >have a right to wear their sheets--and we have a right to throw bottles."
>: "Throw bottles?" Isn't that rather an excessive response, physical
>: violence against marchers? Would you object if they did the same thing?
>I actually agree with you here; I would have said "----and we have a
>right to carry signs". But I didn't post it because I thought it nitpicky.
Nitpicky? Objecting to the endorsement of physically violent action
as a response to people non-violently demonstrating to express their
views is *nitpicky*? What would you have thought if it had been a gay
basher who said "they have a right to hold hands in public and I have a
right to throw bottles?" Would it have been nitpicky for me to object?
Jeff Moore & Francine Turner
>
>
>In article <3i353n$5...@amhux3.amherst.edu> bsli...@unix.amherst.edu (beth)
writes:
>>be noted that any lesbian who doesn't want to date bisexual women is sort of
>>missing out).
>
>Missing out on what? Are they "missing out" more by this than by any
>other criteria, such as not dating men, or people with piercings, or
>blondes, or computer programmers?
And what's wrong with computer programmers? ;>
(Or for that matter: Male, pierced, blonde computer programmers?) >;->
>
>>on the other hand, i think there
>>are certain issues which some might characterize as "lesbian issues" or "gay
>>issues" or "bisexual issues" as opposed to more general "queer issues"
>
>Such as? In particular, I'd like to hear what you think are uniquely
>bisexual issues. I've been trying to come up with some for a while with
>little success...*smile*...
Okay, "When should I come out as Bi to a woman I am dating?"
Or, "If I only sleep with other men, am I cheating on my girlfriend?"
[sniped good schtuff]
>Muffy
>--
>Muffy Barkocy ** mu...@fish.com ** http://fish.com/muffy.html
>~And if I look like your problem/you look like a/broken promise to me/
> I got 16 roses/on Valentine's Day/and not one word/not one word/not
> one word/from you~ - disappear fear
>
*hugstoMuffyandBethallatonce*
Jeff.
--
------------------------ .sig the sea monster
Francine has arrived in the 90's. Hurray!
She has her own address now, Ftu...@netcom.com
I will still continue to use the Jeff...@ix.netcom.com
that you all have grown to know and love.
Jeff.
------------------------
Jeff Moore & Francine Turner
writes:
It started in personals, and in the legend preceding the personals.
Apparently, it was starting to come into common use at events and clubs.
Cool news! When we talked to the Lesbian News about it, they said they
would change the legend in the issue one removed (they couldn't change
it in the current issue as it had already gone to press).
I would really appreciate it if some of this readership could send them
snail mail stating our approval and thankfulness for responding in a
positive manner!
*hugs* to all,
Mark Stapleton
>In article <3i1kie$4...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Jeff Moore & Francine Turner <Jeff...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>advertisements to denote that 'No Bisexuals' would be welcome, only
>>'Lesbians'.
>
>or what?
>
>Lynn (And where?)
>
Kinda like 'No Coloreds", isn't it?
Mark (What *are* we bis, the outcasts of the sexual world?)
--
MIGS of the Bi Cabal (We Don't Exist(tm))
intellectual ammunition gatherer
mst...@blkbox.com
thedavid
: In article <3i2bs2$7...@clarknet.clark.net> thedavid (Mother Of Jack)@clark.net () writes:
: >>On the other hand IMHO it'd be damn inappropriate for our Community
: >Center to sponsor an "event" that pointedly excluded anyone in Queerdom,
: >including those straights who supports and stand with us.
: Why, exactly, do you think it would be inappropriate?
That's been answered rather well (among the >>>>>s!) by someone citing
the Black Civil Rights Movement & Feminism as analogies..
: >Yet if the
: >Center were to lease or donate some of it's space to the "Anti-Lesbian
: >League Of Bisexual Virgins" or whatever I'd say it's a _valid_ use and
: >they have a right to meet--but I would vigorously protest against their
: >views. As I put it during the hubbub about a local KKK march, "they
: >have a right to wear their sheets--and we have a right to throw bottles."
: "Throw bottles?" Isn't that rather an excessive response, physical
: violence against marchers? Would you object if they did the same thing?
Muffy,
They already do the same to US, tho I do rarely see five klansman
attacking twenty queers. And "marchers?" How about individuals just
going to the convenience store for a pack of Camels? So I would,
in my militant fashion, say we carry enough signs in the cemetary
--tho those signs be stone and not lifted very high. Whatever
happened to "Queers Bash Back?"
But as to whether or not any of this means anything...*SIGH*
David (now sans sig)
thedavid
With all due respect to the pacifists here, I'll quote Malcom X:
"I will be nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with me."
They (i.e. KKK-Skinz-Rightists) have NOT been nonviolent with me.
Want to see my xrays? medical records? the scars on my face? And
all I did was go out for cigarettes!
In my particular case it feels more like a matter of _survival_
than _principle_.
Anyway, whatever.
David
Wild Porkchop
>They already do the same to US, tho I do rarely see five klansman
>attacking twenty queers. And "marchers?" How about individuals just
>going to the convenience store for a pack of Camels? So I would,
>in my militant fashion, say we carry enough signs in the cemetary
>--tho those signs be stone and not lifted very high. Whatever
>happened to "Queers Bash Back?"
Oh, ok, so since they bashed you, it's ok for you to bash some
other person who's not even associated with them other than sharing
similar beliefs? Yeah, that makes sense.
Piglet
Wild Porkchop
>Kinda like 'No Coloreds", isn't it?
Not really. Those signs aren't up on lunch counters and washrooms
and water fountains and buses.
No, it's much more like the "No Men" signs outside the Michigan
Women's Music Festival or lesbian bars. Or the "No Women" signs
outside gay bars.
It's not very much like the "No Women" signs outside men's clubs
and golf courses, because those are power broker arenas, and these
emphatically are not.
It's even less like any of the above because bisexuality is not
an externally obvious characteristic.
Piglet
Muffy Barkocy
In article <3ipbrg$9...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> Jeff...@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Moore & Francine Turner) writes:
>In <MUFFY.95F...@bi.fish.com> mu...@bi.fish.com (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <3i353n$5...@amhux3.amherst.edu> bsli...@unix.amherst.edu (beth)
>writes:
>>>be noted that any lesbian who doesn't want to date bisexual women is sort of
>>>missing out).
>>
>>Missing out on what? Are they "missing out" more by this than by any
>>other criteria, such as not dating men, or people with piercings, or
>>blondes, or computer programmers?
>And what's wrong with computer programmers? ;>
>(Or for that matter: Male, pierced, blonde computer programmers?) >;->
Wrong? Nothing, but that's beside the point. The issue is that there
are many criteria that people use for deciding who they are attracted to
or are willing to be attracted to or involved with. What I was asking
is whether or not bisexuality was seen as somehow different from these;
if someone would be "missing out" more if they wouldn't date bisexuals
than if they wouldn't date blond(e)s.
>>>on the other hand, i think there
>>>are certain issues which some might characterize as "lesbian issues" or "gay
>>>issues" or "bisexual issues" as opposed to more general "queer issues"
>>
>>Such as? In particular, I'd like to hear what you think are uniquely
>>bisexual issues. I've been trying to come up with some for a while with
>>little success...*smile*...
>Okay, "When should I come out as Bi to a woman I am dating?"
>Or, "If I only sleep with other men, am I cheating on my girlfriend?"
Humm...I'd say those are uniquely bisexual "questions," but the "issues"
I see there are those of coming out, telling people you're dating about
yourself, and honesty and agreements in relationships. That is, the
answers would be the same to questions like "When should I tell the
person I'm dating that I want to have children" or "if I only engage in
one-night-stands while out of town, am I cheating on my girlfriend?"
The details of the questions vary according to the individual (note, for
example, that one of your questions is, in fact, not specific to
bisexuals but to male bisexuals), but the issues are quite general, and
not ones that are really unique to bisexuals. On the other hand, you
could argue that the issue of whether or not bisexuals *need* "one of
each" is unique, which is true, and it's sort of implied by your second
question. So, there's one...*smile*.
Muffy
--
Muffy Barkocy ** mu...@fish.com ** http://fish.com/muffy.html
~night bloom filling up the room/with the salt and musk of lovers' rich
perfume/and your hair tumbles down like sahara gold/animal grins and wild
shining eyes/laughing and shouting we're a hundred storeys high/and your
hair tumbles down like sahara gold~ - Bruce Cockburn
Muffy Barkocy
In article <3ir18i$f...@clarknet.clark.net> thedavid (Safety To Red)@clark.net () writes:
>Muffy Barkocy (mu...@bi.fish.com) wrote:
>: In article <3i2bs2$7...@clarknet.clark.net> thedavid (Mother Of Jack)@clark.net () writes:
>: >>On the other hand IMHO it'd be damn inappropriate for our Community
>: >Center to sponsor an "event" that pointedly excluded anyone in Queerdom,
>: >including those straights who supports and stand with us.
>: Why, exactly, do you think it would be inappropriate?
>That's been answered rather well (among the >>>>>s!) by someone citing
>the Black Civil Rights Movement & Feminism as analogies..
Well, no, it hasn't. See my response there.
>: >Yet if the
>: >Center were to lease or donate some of it's space to the "Anti-Lesbian
>: >League Of Bisexual Virgins" or whatever I'd say it's a _valid_ use and
>: >they have a right to meet--but I would vigorously protest against their
>: >views. As I put it during the hubbub about a local KKK march, "they
>: >have a right to wear their sheets--and we have a right to throw bottles."
>: "Throw bottles?" Isn't that rather an excessive response, physical
>: violence against marchers? Would you object if they did the same thing?
>Muffy,
>They already do the same to US, tho I do rarely see five klansman
>attacking twenty queers.
"They" being who, exactly? Or are they all just "guilty by
association?" Note that a serious right-wing Christian might well say
the same thing about homosexual or bisexual people, and mean it. They
*do* feel threatened. I personally think they're wrong, but since they
don't agree, I would hardly be enthusiastic about endorsing the argument
that if a group is, by its existence, threatening to you, you are free
to physically attack any member of that group at any moment.
>And "marchers?" How about individuals just
>going to the convenience store for a pack of Camels?
What about them? I gather, from what you say elsewhere, that you were
attacked under such circumstances. That was wrong. What does that have
to do with whether or not you should attack someone who is *not*
attacking you?
Consider also (but do not start a flamewar over) the killing of doctors
who perform abortions. The people who do it honestly believe that those
doctors are a threat to many people's lives. Does that make it right to
kill them? I don't think so. There is very little that makes killing
someone else acceptable, and I'm not sure there's anything that makes it
right.
Muffy
--
Muffy Barkocy ** mu...@fish.com ** http://fish.com/muffy.html
thedavid
: thedavid (Safety To Red)@clark.net (), while prying the lemmings from hir ankles, exclaimed:
"What's good for the goose..."
David
artemis
"You cannot expect the basic respect and to be accorded the basic dignity
due all people if you do not in turn respect others, regardless of
their views. The answer to hatred is not more hatred, the answer to
violence is not more violence. Standing up for your basic rights does
not involve trampling others. To commit violence upon others is only
pardonable in defense."
Defending oneself I can respect and support. Lashing out in blind
hatred I cannot.
--
Anmar Mirza # Chief of Tranquility # I'm a cheap date,
EMT-D N9ISY # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # but an expensive pet.
Sawyer # Somewhere out on the # EOL
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch. DoD#1143 # My views, not the U's
Strawflower
>mu...@bi.fish.com (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>Consider also (but do not start a flamewar over) the killing of doctors
>>who perform abortions. The people who do it honestly believe that those
>>doctors are a threat to many people's lives. Does that make it right to
>>kill them? I don't think so. There is very little that makes killing
>>someone else acceptable, and I'm not sure there's anything that makes it
>>right.
>
>and it being "right". I'm not sure what this distinction is. Can you
>expand on it?
I think I'll re-emerge from my protracted lurk to comment on this.
The distinction between "acceptable" (or "tolerable") and "right"
is the difference between abstract theory (which can be sound and
valuable as far as it goes) and pragmatic consideration. For example:
I believe that it is not right for me to let expressions of hetero-
sexist prejudice go unchallenged, especially in peer groups of which
I am a part.
I am enrolled in an institution which employs and encourages people
(both faculty and students) who discriminate against and spread
misinformation about homosexuality and bisexuality. Moreover, I
have personal accquaintances here who find it more comfortable to
accept and repeat these opinions than to suspend their animosity
towards non-heterosexuals.
Now, it is obvious that it would be "right" for me to loudly and
decisively challenge these views wherever they may arise, particularly
when I happen to be personally present when someone indulges in
vocal heterosexism.
Due to pragmatic considerations, I am forced to accept as "tolerable"
that I cannot make a useful impact on a college which as a political
necessity aligns itself with the "christian right" (still neither).
As one person, I have no clout vs. the conservative contributors that
keep this college from going under in a big way.
So I do small things--I drop fairly unmistakable hints to my more
friendly acquaintances about opinions and policies that bother me.
I say *why* those opinions bother me. When I see "PFLAG" and what
the initials represent written out on the telephone booth wall, I
leave a positive response.
But for practical reasons, I cannot do what is "right." If I did, I
would certainly hold a moral high ground--but for no appreciable end.
I am forced to hold certain silences as "acceptable." Not right, not
"good," just practical.
>My own thesis on killing is that (almost) every person and organisation
>in the world thinks that it is okay to kill in certain circumstances.
>The "only" area of disagreement is that people/organisations do not
>agree on what these "certain circumstances" are.
Not to be nit-picky, but... I don't believe that I will ever hear of
a killing and call it "okay." I may be forced to accept that certain
acts are committed out of social or practical necessity, but I refuse
to call them "right."
....strawflower.
(not trying to flame your opinion, just hoping to clarify)
+-+--+----+------+----------+ * +------------+ * +----------+------+----+--+-+
The fear has left me now
I'm not frightened anymore Strawflower -----<* --<*
It's my heart that pounds beneath this flesh *>- dper...@westmont.edu
It's my mouth that pushes out this breath -- Sarah McLachlan
Bitty
(Benjamin Edelman (bede...@cais3.cais.com)who is really a very
silly boy...) burst forth:
> I would make a distinction. When I think of something as the "right"
> thing to do, I think of a moral imperative. To me, something being
yes, i know, and you're *very* adamant about most of them.
however, dear, remember that most people's morals are radically
different - there are some things i find offensive that you have no
qualms with and vice versa - ie the eating of animals (god i want a good
steak right now...)
> "right" means I really must do it (if I were perfect.... ;-)
well, close enough, if you ignore small little details, like 450
miles, 3 years, meat, religion, ticklishness, showtunes, ST vs. SW,
tomatoes, mac v. ibm, Red Sox v. those silly pinstriped boys (hey, look
at what happened to my parents under those conditions!!!), etc.
other than that, youre perfect :) *kiss*
> Something being "acceptable" makes it permissible, IHMO. For example, I
not really. hey, lets argue it out friday night and piss each
other off :) i will not mention NORML, i will not mention NORML...
> consider killing someone in direct self-defense acceptable, but not
well, yes, because otherwise youd be dead and not worrying about it
> necessarily right.... I wouldn't say "it was the right thing to do" but
> "it was reasonable to have done".
why, however, was it the "wrong" thing to do, if it was the only
alternative to death? isnt suicide like morally, wrath of god, wrong?
> I would only consider killing "right" if it were the absolute last
i would never consider it right, i suppose, regardless of what i
argue... id just avoid the situation, or deal with my conscious
> --ben, morally complicated
um, just stick with "complicated"
and yes, your morals confuse the hell out of me.
Bitty, who used to have morals, and managed to destroy nearly every
single one in a six month span (and i regret almost every bot of it,
too. *sigh* i want my ethics back, but once theyre gone, its so damned
hard...)
--
Bethany "Bitty" Ramirez "TTFN - Ta Ta For Now!!!" - Tigger
http://www.amherst.edu/~bkramire/menu.html
UMass Basketball all the way!!!
"Never tell me the odds."
Ciaran McHale
>Consider also (but do not start a flamewar over) the killing of doctors
>who perform abortions. The people who do it honestly believe that those
>doctors are a threat to many people's lives. Does that make it right to
>kill them? I don't think so. There is very little that makes killing
>someone else acceptable, and I'm not sure there's anything that makes it
>right.
You seem to be drawing a distinction between killing being "acceptable"
and it being "right". I'm not sure what this distinction is. Can you
expand on it?
My own thesis on killing is that (almost) every person and organisation
in the world thinks that it is okay to kill in certain circumstances.
The "only" area of disagreement is that people/organisations do not
agree on what these "certain circumstances" are.
Ciaran.
--
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmc...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Dist. Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, Trinity College,
\/ Dublin 2, Ireland. Telephone: +353-1-6081539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
http://www.dsg.cs.tcd.ie:/dsg_people/cjmchale/cjmchale.html
Abominable Programmatrice
>artemis (ami...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Defending oneself I can respect and support. Lashing out in blind
>: hatred I cannot.
>I'd hardly characterize my position as "lashing out in blind hatred"
>--were that the case I wouldn't be _typing_ now--but I take it you
>won't the joining "themilitia" anytime soon because of your beliefs.
>Okay, fine with me--not only is there no Bi Conspiracy but there's
>no Bi Conscription either.
Several times you've suggested bashing people who held objectionable
beliefs, and offered "what's good for the goose..." as a justification
when questioned on your position. How else can this be characterized
other than "lashing out in blind hatred".
Piglet
Bitty
<3j2u5q$4...@news.cais.com>
Organization: Purple Crayons, Ltd.
While suddenly being approached by a terribly sexy lima bean, Benjamin Edelman
(Benjamin Edelman (bede...@cais3.cais.com) who should buy me more B&J's
ice cream this weekend...) burst forth:
> Oh yes - I don't consider moral imperatives universal. They are very
thank goodness, or you'd be single on the spot.
> subjective - what I consider morally "right" for me to do, I understand
> will not be "right" for someone else, because their ethical framework
> differes from my own. I just accept and live with those differences (if
however, tehre are still some people (one of your housemates and a
member of the rpg campaign i no longer belong to leap to mind) who look
down on, disapprove of, try to make others feel guilty, etc., because of
their diffeerent ethics. to use names, karen has made me feel
uncomfortable on more than one occasion by attacking my non-vegetarianism
and acting as if i were morally inferior. that pisses me off. the Xian
Fanatics across the hall are the same way - i dont believe what they do,
so im not "as good", and they go out of their way to prove it.
i dont care whether or not *you* are that way; your peers are
like that and it puts me in a rather annoyed spot. i have to always
wonder if you feel the same way.
you do, after all, deliberately try to live in a place and work
in an environment where people feel the same.
how does that make me feel?
not inferior, maybe; i am strong in *my* attitude on the issue,
but uncomfortable as all hell.
> I don't believe in wrath of God stuff, but I don't think ~(right) = wrong.
thank goodness. i dont believe in god, so that would be another
problem, wouldnt it.
> --ben, who really wants to bring math into this discussion, but he knows
> he'd get hurt for it this weekend ;-P
understatement.
Bitty, deciding that just listening to comfortably numb a few times will
make her feel better - or not at all
Lord Godalming
> Bitty, deciding that just listening to comfortably numb a few times will
> make her feel better - or not at all
If I may make a recommendation? Check the .sig <grin>
--
Colin Bunnell "Running over the same old ground,
cjbu...@unix.amherst.edu what have we found? The same old fears.
CJBU...@AMHERST.EDU Wish you were here."
http://www.amherst.edu/~cjbunnel/menu.html -Pink Floyd
Lord Godalming
> Bitty, who used to have morals, and managed to destroy nearly every
> single one in a six month span (and i regret almost every bot of it,
> too. *sigh* i want my ethics back, but once theyre gone, its so damned
> hard...)
Wrong. Bzzt, sorry, try again. You have been accused, tried, and
convicted of first-degree possession of ethics. No appeal. No
recourse. Deal with it.
(you forget, there are people who have known you for an extended period
of time who read this board--argumentative ones, besides. : )
SHE LIES, PEOPLE!!! <grin>
Bitty
<3j39lo$o...@amhux3.amherst.edu> <3j3d2i$1...@amhux3.amherst.edu>
Organization: Purple Crayons, Ltd.
While suddenly being approached by a terribly sexy lima bean, Lord Godalming
(Lord Godalming (cjbu...@unix.amherst.edu) the one with the
*fabulously* wonderful eyes) burst forth:
> T'were declared from on high by Bitty that:
> > Bitty, deciding that just listening to comfortably numb a few times will
> > make her feel better - or not at all
> If I may make a recommendation? Check the .sig <grin>
huh?
different cd - if i listened to wish you were here, i'd get
depressed, rather than mellow.
then again, i *do* have you to thank for introducing me to pink
floyd. i may not worship them yet (remembers colin's virtual shrine),
but you did at least create a fan.
Bitty, who just maybe will switch cd's now, dammit.
Bitty
mherst.edu> <3j3dar$2...@amhux3.amherst.edu>
Organization: Purple Crayons, Ltd.
While suddenly being approached by a terribly sexy lima bean, Lord Godalming
(Lord Godalming (cjbu...@unix.amherst.edu) whom I suppose is really an
okay person beneath that glower ;p) burst forth:
> T'were declared from on high by Bitty that:
> > Bitty, who used to have morals, and managed to destroy nearly every
> > single one in a six month span (and i regret almost every bot of it,
> > too. *sigh* i want my ethics back, but once theyre gone, its so damned
> > hard...)
> Wrong. Bzzt, sorry, try again. You have been accused, tried, and
> convicted of first-degree possession of ethics. No appeal. No
> recourse. Deal with it.
the polisci dept. may have a problem with this ;p
however, i believe you were the cause of the loss of one of those
moral quandaries waybackwhen... oh well. (not like dave and dt hadnt
messed with me already with the alcohol thing)
> (you forget, there are people who have known you for an extended period
and you haven't gotten The Black Death yet? Amazing ;p
> of time who read this board--argumentative ones, besides. : )
you, argumentative?!?!?!?!?
*contemplates this...*
nah, never... ;p
not at all violently argumentative, either ;p
> SHE LIES, PEOPLE!!! <grin>
well, there goes another moral! (hadnt blown that one yet)
Well, thanks, tho :)
i really feel better - most of last year i thought i was a Horrid
Person (tm), and its noice to know you dont really think so - really :)
Bitty, who still thinks she destroyed most of her morals anyway.
Unicorn
Benjamin Edelman, who owes me a backrub :) exclaimed:
: I didn't, I'd be a hermit in Montana by now)
'ow 'bout just being a 'ermit in western 'assachusetts?
: --ben, who really wants to bring math into this discussion, but he knows
: he'd get hurt for it this weekend ;-P
hurt?
no.
ever read "Lysistrata" tho?
Bitty, evil look on face, beneath that innocent, angelic exterior :)
--
Bethany "Bitty" Ramirez http://www.amherst.edu/~bkramire/menu.html
"What are we? Just a coupla' specks of nothing."
Lynn
Safety To Red)@clark.net ( <thedavid> wrote:
>
>With all due respect to the pacifists here, I'll quote Malcom X:
>"I will be nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with me."
Just because a famous person says something does not mean the
something said is an appropriate philosophy.
>They (i.e. KKK-Skinz-Rightists) have NOT been nonviolent with me.
>Want to see my xrays? medical records? the scars on my face? And
>all I did was go out for cigarettes!
This, of course, was an attack by specific individuals rather than
organizations.
>In my particular case it feels more like a matter of _survival_
>than _principle_.
The key word is 'feels.'
Lynn
thed...@clark.net
Hey Lynn, find a clue yourself. Dipshit.
David
Benjamin Edelman
: While suddenly comprehending that Lima Beans were the meaning of life,
: : I didn't, I'd be a hermit in Montana by now)
: 'ow 'bout just being a 'ermit in western 'assachusetts?
I don't think I could live in a state called "Assachusetts" - the teasing
would get to me after a while
--ben, ;-P
--
"Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of
necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a
dialectic" -- Audre Lorde
bede...@envirolink.org Benjamin Edelman bede...@cais.com
Benjamin Edelman
: We simply do not obey laws (moral or statute) that we don not feel are
: not useful to us.
nice - a quadruple negative ;P
: (How many drivers among us speed?) The guilt
: associated with violation of morals is simply NOT useful. We will
: continue to violate external moral codes if they don't coincide with
: our ethics. Better to let go of the external codes and "to thine own
: self be true."
Fear, however, of retribution keeps many people from violating standards
they find useless. One good friend *refuses* to smoke marijuana for no
personal reasons, simply that one day she hopes to be on the supreme
court, and we all remember Ginsburg....
--ben, who believes that a few external codes are important to the smooth
functioning of a society of individuals
Abominable Programmatrice
>Hey Lynn, find a clue yourself. Dipshit.
For the benefit of those whose newsreaders do not have adequate
threading capabilities, one may wish to include more context in
one's followups.
Kindly point out for the edification of the Constant Weader Lynn's
stricture to you to "get a clue". Lynn's post included below for
context.
I see you've at least signed your post appropriately.
Piglet
P.S. Now you, too, can play "Spot the flame", a new Milton-Bradley
game!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McHale
>cjmc...@news.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>>mu...@bi.fish.com (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>Consider also (but do not start a flamewar over) the killing of doctors
>>>who perform abortions. The people who do it honestly believe that those
>>>doctors are a threat to many people's lives. Does that make it right to
>>>kill them? I don't think so. There is very little that makes killing
>>>someone else acceptable, and I'm not sure there's anything that makes it
>>>right.
>>
>>You seem to be drawing a distinction between killing being "acceptable"
>>and it being "right". I'm not sure what this distinction is. Can you
>>expand on it?
>
>"wrong." The other is an issue of societal judgement, "acceptable" or
>"unacceptable."
I think that there is a third possibility with regards to morality:
"right", "wrong" and "neutral". From reading between the lines of your
posting and those of others who have followed up my last article, it
seems to me that you are thinking to yourselves that "killing is not
morally right; therefore it must be morally wrong." However, this does
not allow for the possibility that killing might be morally neutal.
>>>There is very little that makes killing someone else acceptable,
>>>and I'm not sure there's anything that makes it right.
While I respect this opinion, I disagree with it. I cannot argue my case
very well since I have not thought much about it. However, my argument
boils down to this:
o Killing is quite common in some animal species, e.g., some
animals kill others for food. I do not think that it is
necessariarly wrong for animals to kill.
o While many people like to think of humans as being somehow
"better than" or "above" other animals, I don't think this is
the case.
o Therefore, if killing is not necessariarly morally wrong in
other animal species then I don't see why it should
necessariarly be wrong in humans.
As I said, I haven't thought about this issue in much depth so I won't
defend the above stance too strongly.
>So, myself, I think that killing another person is always morally wrong;
>from a moral standpoint, I don't think that you can take away someone's
>control over their own body, which killing certainly does.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by taking away a person's control
over their own body? Can you give any examples, other than killing or
maining, of things that might do this?
A few years ago, a friend said he thought it would be acceptable to
murder another human being if:
o You could kill the person painlessly.
o The person was not forewarned that s/he would be murdered,
thus avoiding mental cruality.
o Nobody would grieve over the person's death.
When I originally heard this, my instinct felt that such a murder would
not be acceptable ("morally neutral" if you prefer) but I could not
find any logical counter-argument. Does anybody have any thoughts on
this issue?
Anthony Barreiro
<3jaj87$v...@yaler.cs.tcd.ie>, cjmc...@news.cs.tcd.ie
(Ciaran McHale) wrote:
> A few years ago, a friend said he thought it would be acceptable to
> murder another human being if:
>
> o You could kill the person painlessly.
>
> o The person was not forewarned that s/he would be murdered,
> thus avoiding mental cruelty.
>
> o Nobody would grieve over the person's death.
>
> When I originally heard this, my instinct felt that such a murder
> would not be acceptable ("morally neutral" if you prefer) but I could
> not find any logical counter-argument. Does anybody have any thoughts
> on this issue?
Well, to my way of thinking, such a rationale would be morally
wrong, because one of the foundations of my ethical system is the
belief that each person should be empowered to exercise
self-determination to the greatest extent possible, provided of
course that he or she is not encroaching on the self-determination
of others. One person presuming to play God(dess) in the life of
another would be presumed to be wrong, unless some greater
moral purpose could be accomplished only through murder (I can't
imagine such a situation).
To respond to your friend's rationale point by point:
o Pain is not the worst thing about death. Being dead is the worst
thing about death.
o I would rather *know* that somebody intended to snuff me, so I
could appeal to their better judgement, try to get help, defend myself,
and / or prepare myself to die.
o How could you possibly know whether somebody would mourn
the passing of another person? I work with extremely disadvantaged
people, including skid row alcoholics, people you would think have
fallen off the face of the earth, socially speaking. And you know
what? They have families, and they have friends, people who grieve
when they die (and there *are* religious folks who mourn for every
soul). And they're human beings with just as rich and complex an
inner life as you or I, and the same human rights as you and I.
In general, imho, killing other people is wrong. Let's try to avoid
situations in which we might have to kill fellow humans, and try to
create conditions which foster mutual respect and cooperation, thus
making it less likely that people will engage in murder.
Morality entails more than simply avoiding doing wrong. A moral
imperative carries with it an obligation to create conditions conducive
to its observance. Nobody's perfect, but we can each and all do
something to make the world a slightly better place.
Anthony ____
barr...@out.org \bi/
OUTline San Francisco \/
Ciaran McHale
>>as every animal has its differences from other animals. Our difference,
>>however, is the one which makes this whole question *possible*, which is
>>the ability to think about our actions and *ask* whether or not they are
>>"right" or "wrong" (or "neutral").
>>[...]
>
>To elaborate on this "animal" section a bit: there is never a "moral"
>issue about what animals other than humas do, because they do not make
>decisions about what to do based on any moral principles. You cannot be
>acting immorally if you cannot consider the moral issues involved in
>your actions. So, an animal killing something is not "morally neutral";
>it has nothing to do with morals at all. The question of the morality
>of the action is not applicable.
I am curious as to why you think that animals lack the intelligence to
think about the morality of their actions.
Some random thoughts...
I read in a book ("The American Prison Business" by Jessica Mitford)
that a particular tribe in some part of the world treats murder as
being a relatively petty crime (I seem to recall that the reasoning was
that murder was considered to be a valid way of settling personal
disputes) but considers polluting the local river as being tantamount
to treason since it endangers the whole community. This is, of course,
the opposite to the laws in many countries whereby murder is punishable
by prison/death while companies that dump waste chemicals into rivers
often receive a small fine. The point of this anecedote is that, just
as different people here on soc.bi have expressed different views on
the morality of killing, it seems that different societies also have
different views on the acceptability of killing.
Regarding the anecedote in your precious posting about your friend
being called up for service during war... War is one situation where
many people (though not me) feel that not only is killing not "wrong"
but it is actually "right". This can be seen if you consider how
"fighting for your country" is sometimes claimed to be an obligation or
duty of citizens.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: Andrew David Simchik (as0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
: : In <3jaj87$v...@yaler.cs.tcd.ie> cjmc...@news.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
: [No need to quote ciaran's whole post again!]
: : Those three points have been key to my own religious/philosophical stance
: : for a while now, so I quite agree with you. (This doesn't mean I can argue
: : it, either, but I guess I'd be willing to try.)
: Here's one for 'y'all: what if the killee specifically requests it?
: I.e. mercy-killing?
My own judgement and my own belief in consentuality would guide me.
However, just because they request assistance doesn't mean I would
have to provide it.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Felix Lee
> Since animals are not capable of creating and utilizing conceptual
> thinking, and choosing a course of action based on such thinking,
unproven assertion, and probably false.
non-human primates are known to engage in deceptive behavior for
various reasons. some of this behavior is very hard to explain if you
don't believe that primate X _knows_ what primate Y _thinks_ about
what X is _trying_ to signal to Y. this is probably enough
conceptualizing to start talking about moral choices.
umm, for a reference, try:
Machiavellian intelligence, social expertise and the evolution of intellect in
monkeys, apes, and humans. / edited by Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten.
Oxford, Oxfordshire, Clarendon Press; New York, Oxford University Press,
1988.
there's also assorted evidence for non-primates, but primates seem to
be pretty well documented and not too controversial.
--
Andrew David Simchik
>It's not intelligence that's the problem. Morality is a system based on a
>series of concepts and actions chosen on the basis of those concepts. Since
>animals are not capable of creating and utilizing conceptual thinking, and
>choosing a course of action based on such thinking, there is no way for an
>animal to make a moral choice
Mark, the whole point is that although I'm inclined to believe that you're
right about the conceptual abilities of animals other than humans, I don't
know that there is any proof of the assertion that they can't do it. If
there is, I'm dying to know about it.
Drewcifer
--
O-+-> Andrew D. Simchik: as0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
O-+-> a.k.a. Drewcifer, the Royal Porcupine
O-+-> off the Internet from 3/12 to 3/19
O-+-> hat * brooch * pterodactyl
Benjamin Edelman
: >attacking you, legally, at that point *you* become the agressor. I'm
: >not sure I agree with that 100%, if someone committed violence upon
: >me, I'd probably find some way to extract my personal revenge upon
: I personally would be more inclined to have trouble avoiding my "better safe
: than sorry" worldview, which would lead me to make *damned* sure the person
: was incapable of further attack. Y'never know.
Well, maybe -- and when Bernie Goetz shot four kids in the back on a
subway platform after they tried to rob him, he *was* found innocent.
Doesn't make it right, but the law finds grey areas, too.
--ben
anmar mirza (artemis)
>
>
>
> "Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill!"
>
>
> - Arlo Guthrie
Some friends and I are working on updating Alice's Restaurant for the
90's. Instead of a restaurant, it'll be Alice's new fast food
"You can get anything you want dude, at Alice's new fast food"
Instead of getting picked up for dumping the garbage, they'll be
arrested by the SEC for peddling junk bonds. Instead of 8x10
color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph
there'll be wiretaps, datafiles confiscated and faxes.
Instead of being drafted, he'll be applying for a position on Wall Street.
While sitting on the group W bench, the biggest meanest, ugliest one
of them all will ask "whatcha got, kid"
"A Bachelors"
And they all moved away, until I added
"and an MBA" and they all moved back...
Coming soon to a con near you!
--
Anmar Mirza # EMT-D # Chief of Tranquility Base, Lawrence Co. IN.
Networks # N9ISY # Somewhere out on the Mirza Ranch. DOD#1143
Specialist # EOL # I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
Andrew David Simchik
>Andrew David Simchik (as0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
>: In <3jnb1o$r...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (artemis) writes:
>: >attacking you, legally, at that point *you* become the agressor. I'm
>: >not sure I agree with that 100%, if someone committed violence upon
>: >me, I'd probably find some way to extract my personal revenge upon
>: I personally would be more inclined to have trouble avoiding my "better safe
>: than sorry" worldview, which would lead me to make *damned* sure the person
>: was incapable of further attack. Y'never know.
>Well, maybe -- and when Bernie Goetz shot four kids in the back on a
>subway platform after they tried to rob him, he *was* found innocent.
<shrug> Wasn't there. Can't say a thing.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <3k0prt$h...@fred.uswnvg.com> dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com () writes:
: >Muffy Barkocy (mu...@bi.fish.com) wrote:
: >: In any case, "understandable" would not have the right meaning at all.
: >: I find it "understandable" that someone would kill out of jealousy or
: >: greed or some such...but I certainly do not think that it is either
: >: (societally or personally) acceptable or (morally) right.
: >In defense of your life, or the life of another?
: I *would*, but I don't think it would make it any more "right" to kill
: them. Certainly, I would try *not* to kill them if I could stop them in
: some other way.
Good point. As many self-defense experts point out, you respond to
stop the attack. You do not 'shoot to kill' you "shoot to stop".
However, if the attacker dies, so be it.
I wouldn't want to be 'right' in a killing (except in the legal sense to
protect my own ass). However, I consider it my absolute *moral*
responsibility to defend myself and the lives of those around me if it
is within my power. Now, which is more "morally right"?
Yeah, Muffy, I'm trying to back you into a corner. :-)
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Mark Stapleton
Before this thread gets away from us, I would like to interject that there is
no confirmable, repeatable experiment that shows the formation of concepts
in primates or non-primates. The famous primate lab in Oklahoma that has
trained primates in sign language has only demonstrated that primates will
react to sense stimulation; that is, if a human makes the sign for "banana"
and gives a chimpanzee a banana, the test subject will eventually make the
same signal in the hopes that a banana will be forthcoming. There is no
integration of sense perceptions--only a learned reaction to a sense
perception.
I did not claim that primates were not intelligent. I did claim that
morality is beyond their abilities because the concepts that allow one to
define personal moral choice are beyond their mental capacities to create.
Mark
--
Beat me. Whip me. Make me administer AIX.
MIGS of the Bi Cabal (We Don't Exist(tm))
intellectual ammunition gatherer
mst...@blkbox.com
Abominable Programmatrice
>Here is an amusing anecedote I came across in "Feminish, Animals and
>Science: The Naming of the Shrew" by Lynda Birke (Open University Press,
>1994).
>Pages 31--32:
> ... the case of a pig in Normaldy in 1396 which was
> tried for murder. The animal was dressed in human clothes and
> hanged from the gallows in full view of the town populace
> following its conviction.
Hence the recent movie, _The Advocate_.
Piglet
Andrew David Simchik
>In article <3k6qni$8...@kiki.icd.teradyne.com> bry...@icd.teradyne.com writes:
>>In article 95Mar1...@logo.cse.psu.edu, fl...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes:
>>>non-human primates are known to engage in deceptive behavior for
>>>various reasons.
>>
>>Rush Limbaugh, for instance...
>>
>Hey, Wayne, I believe you've misspelt "Newt."
The proper spelling is "Pataki," actually.
>"Sex with you is better than programming!"
Sex with an unwashed oran-utan is better than programming. (Not that I
speak from experience. (With the oran-utan.)) So I'm sure sex with you must
be much, *much* better than programming, alpha.
Drewcifer
--
\ Andrew D. Simchik: as0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
/\
\/
/ hat * brooch * pterodactyl
Andrew Lees
[Deleted]
: While I respect this opinion, I disagree with it. I cannot argue my case
: very well since I have not thought much about it. However, my argument
: boils down to this:
: o Killing is quite common in some animal species, e.g., some
: animals kill others for food. I do not think that it is
: necessariarly wrong for animals to kill.
: o While many people like to think of humans as being somehow
: "better than" or "above" other animals, I don't think this is
: the case.
: o Therefore, if killing is not necessariarly morally wrong in
: other animal species then I don't see why it should
: necessariarly be wrong in humans.
I'm not sure about "Morally wrong", but it seems to me that the
conclusions from this are very wrong. Killing someone/something is
primarily about power, about having what is pretty much the ultimate
power over some other living thing, possibly a human. I certainly don't
want others to have that power over me (or much of any sort of power,
actually, but there you go: can't have everything!). So why should
I expect to be able to do that to others? I don't. And I don't like
the sorts of societies that develop when people do have large amount of
unaccountable power over others (accountable == limited, in theory).
Because in those sorts of societies I might be dragged out of my house
to some place and tortured and killed, _and no-one will do anything to
stop it_.
Allowing people the power to kill humans creates societies that I
find horrendous. Allowing people to kill others in war does something
very similar, except then there is the fantasy that somehow it is less
important, because there is some overarching "right" reason that somehow
offsets all the pain and suffering. So, would you like to live with the fear
that someone will kill you, or even worse, those that matter to you?
Surely not. Killing humans is undesirable, because it results in
undesirable outcomes for some people, and eventually for most or all
people contained within the particular structure where it is happening.
Since the connection between "undesirable outcomes" and "seeing killing
people as not wrong" seems to be very close, I feel it is desirable to label
killing people as "wrong", morally or otherwise.
Because animals kill each other, it does not follow that it is ok for
humans to follow suit. Although humans are animals, they are also something
more. They can think about tomorrow, and being in someone else's shoes,
and "what might happen if". So they can, and should because they have the
capacity, modify their behaviour accordingly.
: A few years ago, a friend said he thought it would be acceptable to
: murder another human being if:
: o You could kill the person painlessly.
: o The person was not forewarned that s/he would be murdered,
: thus avoiding mental cruality.
: o Nobody would grieve over the person's death.
: When I originally heard this, my instinct felt that such a murder would
: not be acceptable ("morally neutral" if you prefer) but I could not
: find any logical counter-argument. Does anybody have any thoughts on
: this issue?
See above.
Look what you get for 2c!
Andy.
(and...@chaos.dialix.oz.au)
Andrew Lees
: Certainly the majority of animals which kill members of their own species
: or closely related species lack said intelligence, since most of them are
: insects. Most of the animals which we currently think are the most
: intelligent, barring humanity, don't kill members of their own species.
: (This group includes all of the cetaceans, as well as the bonobos.)
Interestingly, there were a number (2 or 3, I think) murders carried out
in the chimpanzee colony in Sydney Zoo some time ago. It was all hauntingly
reminicent of the same things in the human world. I don't know
if they ever were absolutely certain who the perpetrator was (although it
was a chimpanzee, not a human).
Andy.
(and...@chaos.dialix.oz.au)
Hayward Mckee
>Because animals kill each other, it does not follow that it is ok for
>humans to follow suit. Although humans are animals, they are also something
>more. They can think about tomorrow, and being in someone else's shoes,
>and "what might happen if". So they can, and should because they have the
>capacity, modify their behaviour accordingly.
living things......always have.....always will.
I see no particular distinction between animal or plant. Both live and have
some right to. But they also run the risk of being killed one way or another.
Be it for food or due to pestulance or desease.
Why should one life form have any superior rights. Animals support plants...
creating CO2, plants support animals creating O. It all goes around and
comes around.
Plant or animal why all support and prey upon each other.
(not plants you say.....ever hear of a venus fly trap?)
OOPS....that why should be we
Look Out For the Train!
>In <3kcfgt$4...@bi.fish.com> al...@fish.com (Look Out For the Train!) writes:
>>"Sex with you is better than programming!"
>
>Sex with an unwashed oran-utan is better than programming. (Not that I
>speak from experience. (With the oran-utan.)) So I'm sure sex with you must
>be much, *much* better than programming, alpha.
It's that old priorities thing rearing it's ugly head again. Personally,
I would find bashing my head repeatedly with a two-by-four studded
with rusty nails more fun than programming--but then again, I'm not a
programmer. If I told somebody that sex with them was better than riding my
motorcycle up Skyline on a sunny day, why, that would mean I _really_
liked hir.
alpha, who feels that she *must* state at this juncture that sex with
the anonymous quoted person in her .sig is *much* better than
riding her motorcycle up Skyline on a sunny day with the road
entirely to *herself*. So there.
--
"Sex with you is better than programming!"
--Anonymous
"You *are* shaped like a penis!"
--Darin May
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: I'm not sure about "Morally wrong", but it seems to me that the
: conclusions from this are very wrong. Killing someone/something is
: primarily about power, about having what is pretty much the ultimate
: power over some other living thing, possibly a human. I certainly don't
: want others to have that power over me (or much of any sort of power,
: actually, but there you go: can't have everything!). So why should
: I expect to be able to do that to others? I don't.
There is no expectation on my part. I do have that power and *will*
use it in defense of me and mine, should anyone attempt to write
their own rights off by makeing any attempt to threaten my life,
or the lives of those around me.
Yes, there is a power to it, but it depends on how and why it is
used.
I believe it to be immoral to allow yourself, or another, to die
through the actions of another. I believe it a horrible thing
to end up using deadly force in your defense, but it is a necessary
thing -- sometimes.
: Because in those sorts of societies I might be dragged out of my house
: to some place and tortured and killed, _and no-one will do anything to
: stop it_.
I would, were I there. You could, were you prepared. You can
wish no one had such power over you (I hope your wishes come true --
I really do) or you can ensure you do not give over to others,
such power.
: Allowing people the power to kill humans creates societies that I
: find horrendous.
There is no 'allow' in the equation. I will do my best to prevent it
and, in the slight instance that I may *actually* have to use
deadly force, and the attacker dies, so be it.
: So, would you like to live with the fear
: that someone will kill you, or even worse, those that matter to you?
: Surely not.
And that is why I have come to the moral decision I have. I will not
live in fear. I will be preared. There is no sheperd to protect
me.
: Killing humans is undesirable, because it results in
: undesirable outcomes for some people, and eventually for most or all
: people contained within the particular structure where it is happening.
Of course it is, but sometimes it is *necessary* in the defense of
another. Necessary, and *highly* undesirable.
: Since the connection between "undesirable outcomes" and "seeing killing
: people as not wrong" seems to be very close, I feel it is desirable to label
: killing people as "wrong", morally or otherwise.
Label all you wish. It does not apply to me, or mine, any more
than any other label. Create your label and wear it proudly.
Please try your best not to pin it to another?
: Because animals kill each other, it does not follow that it is ok for
: humans to follow suit. Although humans are animals, they are also something
: more. They can think about tomorrow, and being in someone else's shoes,
: and "what might happen if". So they can, and should because they have the
: capacity, modify their behaviour accordingly.
And that does not mean you stand still and *die* at the hands of
another wonderful, thinking, dangerous human being.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Eric Siegel
> In <3kcfgt$4...@bi.fish.com> al...@fish.com (Look Out For the Train!) writes:
>
> >In article <3k6qni$8...@kiki.icd.teradyne.com> bry...@icd.teradyne.com writes:
> >>In article 95Mar1...@logo.cse.psu.edu, fl...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes:
> >>>non-human primates are known to engage in deceptive behavior for
> >>>various reasons.
> >>
> >>Rush Limbaugh, for instance...
> >>
>
> >Hey, Wayne, I believe you've misspelt "Newt."
>
> The proper spelling is "Pataki," actually.
>
And here I thought it was a variation on "Possible presidential
candidate Pete Wilson".
Eric Siegel
ejsi...@ucdavis.edu
"It's the breath you took too late/It's the death that's worse than fate"
-- Elvis Costello and the Attractions, "Senior Service"