Mikhail on the theory that sex is icky
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ is off once again on the topic of why homosexuality is bad. His
arguments have the same characteristic as before, namely that for the
most part they don't exist. By this I mean that he will briefly
allude to an argument someone else has made, but not employ it in a
consistent way himself. He gives the impression, which I think is
correct, that he really doesn't care about the argument per se. He
only cares about the argument that there is an argument. That is, for
some reason it is important to him to claim that there exists a
rational basis for disliking homosexuals (which his occasional
poisonously nasty cooments certainly show that he does.) It is not
important what this claim is, nor that his "reasons" should be
imported into any other sphere of his life.
He especially likes Kant and Plato, who both give arguments which
prove that sex is bad and then need to figure out why it is OK
to engage in sex for reproduction.
I think Kant is especially interesting here. What Kant didn't like
about sex was that it involves taking someone else as not being an end
in themselves, but merely as a means for pleasure. Now, supposing
that you accept this as a valid argument, how do you get around it
when you need to?
The answer is sex in a relationship. If we have a relationship where
each person gives themselves to another in a non-exploitative way,
then we are not making the other person into something other than an
end in themselves.
Now, what does this have to do with homosexuality? Actually, nothing.
Kant simply assumes that homosexuals relationships of this sort don't
exist, which of course is not an argument. Therefore, Zeleny's
reference to it is not an argument either.
But it is interesting why he makes it, and what he does with it. He
uses the idea that an argument has been given as a reason to ladle
scorn onto homosexuals.
Now, what is he doing when he does this? For some reason, doing do
fulfills some emotional need. His ego needs stroking, perhaps, or his
own sexual confusions need to be projected onto an exterior target.
But in doing this, he is treating other people not as ends in
themselves, but as a means to his own satisfaction. This is
anti-Kantian, but satisfying to MZ, who wants to distinguish
"authentic" self indulgence (MZ indulges his ego) from "inauthentic"
self-indulgence (somebody else indulges their ego.)
He also alludes to Plato's idea that sex gets in the way of our quest
for Higher Things. However, he does not seem interested in
undertaking the quest to go beyond the ego himself--in fact, someone
with a stronger seeming aversion for it, and more of a need for
ego-stroking, would be hard to find on the net. So again, his
employment of this sort of argument makes no sense.
The inconsistences can be seen in the details of his argument. For
instance, a man having sex with a sterile women or one using birth
control devices is OK, because the sterility is accidental rather than
essential (a distinction in MZ's head, let us note, and not anywhere
in the world.) But it doesn't matter, because his arguments really are
not important to him, and therefore can hardly important to anyone
else.
In any case, I suggest that MZ make his arguments without reference of
any kind to any philosopher, because he seems to do in a way which
only clouds the issue. A better appreciation for good English style
would also be nice.
>But if you should be so daring as to launch a personal attack, be
>warned, -- I shall take great pleasure in cutting you so deep, that
>your self-esteem will never be the same afterwards.
How butch!
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
John McCarthy
amount of evidence, but is there any evidence that Zeleny dislike
homosexuals any more than he dislikes almost everybody else?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Michael Zeleny
feels that there exists a _sui generis_ politics of homosexuality, as
distinct from of contrasted with, the politics of bestiality, bondage,
fetishism, drug addiction, voyerism, necrophilia, alcoholism, or
masturbation, or indeed, the politics of blue eyes, crooked teeth,
ingrown hairs, long eyelashes, lantern chins, haemorrhoids, high
foreheads, or hammer toes, he is welcome to direct his responses to
the appropriate channels. On the other hand, if he is doubtful of his
own ability to argue the cause of sexual inversion, he can always
request the help of his HomIntern comrades through their official
lines of communication.
In article <1992Dec3.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec1.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
GWS:
>MZ is off once again on the topic of why homosexuality is bad. His
>arguments have the same characteristic as before, namely that for the
>most part they don't exist. By this I mean that he will briefly
>allude to an argument someone else has made, but not employ it in a
>consistent way himself. He gives the impression, which I think is
>correct, that he really doesn't care about the argument per se. He
>only cares about the argument that there is an argument. That is, for
>some reason it is important to him to claim that there exists a
>rational basis for disliking homosexuals (which his occasional
>poisonously nasty cooments certainly show that he does.) It is not
>important what this claim is, nor that his "reasons" should be
>imported into any other sphere of his life.
It is interesting to note that your lengthy alleged paraphrase of my
position includes no substantive citations therefrom. It is also
interesting to observe your willful and frivolous deviation from
objective scientific methodology in your explanation of my customary
splenetic observations as due to an alleged animus against your ilk,
rather than the much more plausible, reasonable, and better accounted
for by the evidence, non-discriminatory misanthropy. Once again, I
offer you a bounty of US $1000, should you succeed in demonstrating
that I have addressed McCarthy's alleged heterosexuality in more
favorable terms than your self-professed epicenism.
GWS:
>He especially likes Kant and Plato, who both give arguments which
>prove that sex is bad and then need to figure out why it is OK
>to engage in sex for reproduction.
As a purely intellectual exercise, you might consider going back to
the article whose contents you have prudently elided, and explain, why
my statement that I am not arguing as a Kantian, should be interpreted
as proof of my especial liking for the Koenigsberg wanker.
GWS:
>I think Kant is especially interesting here. What Kant didn't like
>about sex was that it involves taking someone else as not being an end
>in themselves, but merely as a means for pleasure. Now, supposing
>that you accept this as a valid argument, how do you get around it
>when you need to?
>
>The answer is sex in a relationship. If we have a relationship where
>each person gives themselves to another in a non-exploitative way,
>then we are not making the other person into something other than an
>end in themselves.
>
>Now, what does this have to do with homosexuality? Actually, nothing.
>Kant simply assumes that homosexuals relationships of this sort don't
>exist, which of course is not an argument. Therefore, Zeleny's
>reference to it is not an argument either.
My argument, of course, is something you would rather not address,
seeing how last time you had the confidence to do so, you were soon
reduced to pathetic whimpering. At this point, I remain content to
note that my reference to Kant, which in any case was meant to apply
to the Categorical Imperative, rather than to the admittedly silly
argument in the _Metaphysical First Principles of the Doctrine of
Virtue_, I.i.ii/7, to which you allude, is a classic case of battling
Aunt Sally.
GWS:
>But it is interesting why he makes it, and what he does with it. He
>uses the idea that an argument has been given as a reason to ladle
>scorn onto homosexuals.
>
>Now, what is he doing when he does this? For some reason, doing do
>fulfills some emotional need. His ego needs stroking, perhaps, or his
>own sexual confusions need to be projected onto an exterior target.
>But in doing this, he is treating other people not as ends in
>themselves, but as a means to his own satisfaction. This is
>anti-Kantian, but satisfying to MZ, who wants to distinguish
>"authentic" self indulgence (MZ indulges his ego) from "inauthentic"
>self-indulgence (somebody else indulges their ego.)
This, of course, is sheer speculation, quite unrelated to any claim I
made here or elsewhere. But it is interesting to note your gratuitous
attribution to me of the jargon of authenticity, which I repeatedly
denounced as characteristic of precisely the sort of uncritically
self-regarding ethos, which is responsible for your unfortunate sexual
condition. It is as if you could not conceive of any motivation for
moral discourse, or indeed, any other form of expression, which is not
dependent on ulterior, egotistic motives.
GWS:
>He also alludes to Plato's idea that sex gets in the way of our quest
>for Higher Things. However, he does not seem interested in
>undertaking the quest to go beyond the ego himself--in fact, someone
>with a stronger seeming aversion for it, and more of a need for
>ego-stroking, would be hard to find on the net. So again, his
>employment of this sort of argument makes no sense.
More groundless slander masquerading as argument. I submit that you
no absolutely nothing of my quests, just as I know nothing of your
theorems. Unless you stick to the point, e.g. by going back and
responding to the actual words I wrote, your moral bankruptcy will
remain evident to all and sundry.
GWS:
>The inconsistences can be seen in the details of his argument. For
>instance, a man having sex with a sterile women or one using birth
>control devices is OK, because the sterility is accidental rather than
>essential (a distinction in MZ's head, let us note, and not anywhere
>in the world.) But it doesn't matter, because his arguments really are
>not important to him, and therefore can hardly important to anyone
>else.
Not accidental in case of birth control, but incidental to the nature
of the sexual encounter, albeit intentionally produced. I note in
passing that you should not let it bother you that the nominalism you
espouse in your passing comment concerning universals being in my
head, rather than anywhere in the world, renders mathematics, your own
chosen profession, as sterile as your chosen mode of sexuality.
>In any case, I suggest that MZ make his arguments without reference of
>any kind to any philosopher, because he seems to do in a way which
>only clouds the issue. A better appreciation for good English style
>would also be nice.
In your case, I suggest more attentive reading, and greater
appreciation of figures of speech and thought.
MZ:
>>But if you should be so daring as to launch a personal attack, be
>>warned, -- I shall take great pleasure in cutting you so deep, that
>>your self-esteem will never be the same afterwards.
>How butch!
It is quite characteristic of a certain class of men to compulsively
interpret all phenomena on the level of their own base inclinations.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Once again, I offer you a bounty of US $1000, should you succeed in
>demonstrating that I have addressed McCarthy's alleged heterosexuality
>in more favorable terms than your self-professed epicenism.
Your only comment about that was to encourage McCarthy to have more
children. On the other hand, you have often insulted homosexuals for
being homosexual, and in fact do it in this very sentence, by your use
of the phrase "self-professed epicenism".
You owe me $1000. I expect payment in a month; a check drawn on any
US bank will do. Alternatively you can send me DM 1500.
Send my money to:
Gene W. Smith
Gaisbergstrasse 52
6900 Heidelberg
Germany
Thanks.
Gene W. Smith
>Your theory that Zeleny dislikes homosexuals is supported by a certain
>amount of evidence, but is there any evidence that Zeleny dislike
>homosexuals any more than he dislikes almost everybody else?
As one tendentious, overducated shithead to another, I have to admit I
don't know. This is a toughie. I think he likes the idea that he can
claim a rational basis for his generic loathing for all of humanity in
the case of homosexuals. It's even possible he will finally try to
explain what he thinks it is some day.
Michael Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec3.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>Once again, I offer you a bounty of US $1000, should you succeed in
>>demonstrating that I have addressed McCarthy's alleged heterosexuality
>>in more favorable terms than your self-professed epicenism.
GWS:
>Your only comment about that was to encourage McCarthy to have more
>children. On the other hand, you have often insulted homosexuals for
>being homosexual, and in fact do it in this very sentence, by your use
>of the phrase "self-professed epicenism".
Is that my reward for calling you both tendentious, overeducated
shitheads? Listen, buster, if you call this a demonstration, you can
just as easily demonstrate the Riemann conjecture by sheer assertion;
and if you think I encouraged Iron John McCarthy to have more children,
your reading comprehension is way beyond any help I can offer. On the
perennial subject of my allegedly having insulted homosexuals for being
homosexual, I can offer you a remedial clue: when you, Gene Ward Smith,
are being insulted for being a slow-witted cocksucker, the emphasis is
on the specific peculiarity of slow wits, and consequently the scope of
the insult does not encompass sharp-witted cocksuckers Oscar Wilde,
Marcel Proust, or Richard Montague. If the epithet fits, wear it; but
don't be so presumptuous as to suppose that it casts aspersions on
everyone who shares your unfortunate inclinations. Incidentally, the
standards of English language unambiguously stipulate that "epicenism"
is an euphemism, rather than a dysphemism, as your fervid imagination
would have it. Look it up in a dictionary.
GWS:
>You owe me $1000. I expect payment in a month; a check drawn on any
>US bank will do. Alternatively you can send me DM 1500.
>
>Send my money to:
>
>Gene W. Smith
>Gaisbergstrasse 52
>6900 Heidelberg
>Germany
>
>Thanks.
I don't owe you jack shit until you furnish a demonstration. Take a
clue from McCarthy: I like you both equally well. Or not.
Incidentally, your respective sexual preferences notwithstanding, John
McCarthy generally makes just a smidgeon more sense than you. This may
have something to do with the tiresome travesty of an "innocence
outraged" pose you seem to be compelled to drag around each time you
make a public appearance. Take another clue, and confine yourself to
screaming matches with the redoubtable Clayton Cramer; at least in his
ill-informed zealotry you will find both intellectual and emotional
parity with your frazzled, frenetic, foolish self.
Finally, I gleefully observe that your assault, which started as an
alleged refutation of my argument, has ended up as yet another tedious,
groundless, _ad hominem_ accusation. How predictable.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>MZ:
>>>Once again, I offer you a bounty of US $1000, should you succeed in
>>>demonstrating that I have addressed McCarthy's alleged heterosexuality
>>>in more favorable terms than your self-professed epicenism.
>GWS:
>>Your only comment about that was to encourage McCarthy to have more
>>children. On the other hand, you have often insulted homosexuals for
>>being homosexual, and in fact do it in this very sentence, by your use
>>of the phrase "self-professed epicenism".
>Is that my reward for calling you both tendentious, overeducated
>shitheads?
Calling McCarthy a tendentious, overducated shithead is not a comment
on his alleged heterosexuality. A few hours of concentrated thought
will probably make that clear to you.
>Listen, buster, if you call this a demonstration, you can just as
>easily demonstrate the Riemann conjecture by sheer assertion; and if
>you think I encouraged Iron John McCarthy to have more children, your
>reading comprehension is way beyond any help I can offer.
That was the literal sense of your words. Your comments at most
qualified as mildly snarky. I suggest we find an independent panel of
judges. We will have them compare the some of the sewage you spew
when you talk about gay people to your comment on how he should have
more children in order to mimetically encourage the rest of us, and
decide if you owe me $1000.
As to the Riemann conjecture, if I could prove it in a few lines that
is the way I would do it. If you think a proof is improved by
throwing in a lot of useless verbiage, I don't want to read any you
may produce.
>On the perennial subject of my allegedly having insulted homosexuals
>for being homosexual, I can offer you a remedial clue: when you, Gene
>Ward Smith, are being insulted for being a slow-witted cocksucker, the
>emphasis is on the specific peculiarity of slow wits, and consequently
>the scope of the insult does not encompass sharp-witted cocksuckers
>Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust, or Richard Montague. If the epithet fits,
>wear it; but don't be so presumptuous as to suppose that it casts
>aspersions on everyone who shares your unfortunate inclinations.
Speaking of slow wits, you do in the above paragraph precisely what
you claim not to do--cast aspersions everyone who shares my
"unfortunate" inclinations. Otherwise, why call it unfortunate?
Why use a word which is intended as an insult at all?
As Maroney might put it, "YOU LIE!!!!!"
>Incidentally, the standards of English language unambiguously
>stipulate that "epicenism" is an euphemism, rather than a dysphemism,
>as your fervid imagination would have it. Look it up in a dictionary.
Speaking of tendentious shitheads, I think this proves you are one. I
don't have a dictionary handy, but epicenism is by no means intended
as a compliment. If it was so intended, you would not have used it,
so it is obvious that you know this to be true. Again, you are not
being minimally honest.
>I don't owe you jack shit until you furnish a demonstration.
You owe me $1000, but of course I'll never get it. Deadbeat.
>Incidentally, your respective sexual preferences notwithstanding, John
>McCarthy generally makes just a smidgeon more sense than you.
A tribute to your lack of knowledge of biology, I would guess.
>This may have something to do with the tiresome travesty of an
>"innocence outraged" pose you seem to be compelled to drag around each
>time you make a public appearance.
One difference between us is that my concern with morality and moral
standards is not a pose, I am quite serious about it. I don't think
it is a game, and I don't think you do yourself any good by treating
it as one.
Thomas Price
>position includes no substantive citations therefrom. It is also
>interesting to observe your willful and frivolous deviation from
>objective scientific methodology in your explanation of my customary
>splenetic observations as due to an alleged animus against your ilk,
>rather than the much more plausible, reasonable, and better accounted
>for by the evidence, non-discriminatory misanthropy. Once again, I
>offer you a bounty of US $1000, should you succeed in demonstrating
>that I have addressed McCarthy's alleged heterosexuality in more
>favorable terms than your self-professed epicenism.
I don't have anything to add to this extraordinary paragraph; I just
wanted to see it again.
Tom Price | tp...@cs.cmu.edu | Free will? What free will?
*****************************************************************************
plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology
Jim Kalb
>I think Kant is especially interesting here. What Kant didn't like
>about sex was that it involves taking someone else as not being an end
>in themselves, but merely as a means for pleasure. Now, supposing
>that you accept this as a valid argument, how do you get around it
>when you need to?
>The answer is sex in a relationship. If we have a relationship where
>each person gives themselves to another in a non-exploitative way,
>then we are not making the other person into something other than an
>end in themselves.
Can you tell me where Kant develops this argument? I find it
interesting without feeling I understand it. One possibility that
occurs to me is that in order to avoid mutual exploitation ("I'll let
you use me as a means to your pleasure if you do the same") it is
helpful for the relationship to have an objective purpose beyond the
relationship itself. The connection to having children would provide
such a purpose.
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
Out of curiosity, what is the Brahms Gang? (I think I've seen it in
other .sigs as well.)
--
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com)
"To be sure, man's life is a business which does not deserve to be
taken too seriously, yet we cannot help being in earnest with it, and
there's the pity." (Plato)
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>First of all, this is not a political question.
Oh, of course. If I were to claim, in a purely theoretical way, of
course, that Jews were subhumans resentfully determined to
make life miserable for ordinary human beings, that would also
not be a political question.
Whenever you claim some large class of people is inferior, and that
people have a right and perhaps an obligation to denigrate them,
that, Buster, is a political question.
>Secondly, I resent the implication that there is more than one kind of
>politics.
Interesting. Did it ever occur to you that your habit of resenting
facts may be part of your problem with the world?
In ordinary discourse, there is, for instance, California politics,
and German politics, and Democratic politics, and so forth. People
see an advantage in drawing these sorts of distinctions, therefore
they do. If this troubles your digestion, see a doctor.
Moreover, alt.politics.homosexuality was started with the notion of
giving homophobes a place in which to rant. So it seems appropriate
to me to try to direct this there. If you can be induced to actually
give a philosophical argument, instead of constantly pretending to
have already given one, talk.philosophy.misc would also be
appropriate.
>Perhaps you ought to spend more time thinking about the implications
>of what is said, including your own words.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>You have no idea how close you get! And yet, there is one substantive
>difference: unlike yourself, my nephew has no trouble following my
>convoluted heuristic thread.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>You must work on figuring out the difference between quotation and
>allusion. As for your pedagogical experiences, save the account for a
>prospective employer.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>Pay more attention, and you will see the rebuttals.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>Two points: I have never used Plato, Kant, or Sartre, either as means or
>as ends in themselves; moreover, I have never maintained the putative
>illegitimacy of having moral opinions without prior acquaintance with
>any philosophical argument whatsoever. Where I come from, educated
>people have a custom of using multifarious cultural allusions as a form
>of conversational shorthand, without thereby implying their wholesale
>endorsement of the items or positions so evoked. These latter are,
>however, reasonably expected to be understood by their interlocutors.
>They also have a reasonable expectation of eliciting a certain degree of
>appreciation of figurative speech from their audiences. I understand
>that you may be unaccustomed to any form of discourse more taxing than
>cocktail party banter, but rest assured that it is never too late to
>learn some style.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>I shan't argue about what happened last time, except to note that in my
>work, I tend to use Sartre more as a convenient pincushion, than as any
>sort of moral authority. The argument has been given, _in extenso_, in
>my exchange with Mike Morris; kindly refer thereto.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>The reference was given in response to a reader's inquiry. I refuse to
>submit to your interests; this conversation will be conducted in a
>mutually agreeable manner, rather than on your own terms.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>Two notes: the above allusion to principled self-indulgence, a.k.a.
>authenticity, is meant to cover Charles Taylor and Richard Rorty, rather
>than Sartre (not that the recognition of this fact is in any way
>essential to the understanding of my point); more importantly, it is
>meant to denounce, not to endorse (this would be evident to anyone who
>bothered to read on). As for the provenance of sheer cruelty, and its
>moral implications, they are left as an exercise for the reader.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>My claim is that the sexual encounter is changed in its fundamental
>nature by *fundamental* sterility; your interpretive task is to find out
>exactly what aspect of human sexuality I consider as fundamental.
No it isn't--*your* task is to develop your argument yourself. I've
tried to do it for you twice now.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>Given that copious references have been made to biological necessity
>and identity, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out that gender
>trumps everything else.
You haven't even defined gender, except to suggest that genotype is
its essence--which wrecks any argument you would care to make using
this definition.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>If you think so, then you should be more specific about just what sort
>of distinction you take to exist only in my head, and why.
The distinction between accident and essence.
>>Moreover, I don't have a chosen mode of sexuality, so it can't be
>>sterile. Furthermore, if I am sterile because I am not having sex, is
>>that better or worse than if I am sterile even though having sex? Why
>>or why not?
>My apologies, -- I seem to recall your erstwhile advertisement of your
>sexual preference.
Read what I wrote. Unlike most of what you write, it is simple and
clear.
>Sterility, in the sense it has been appealed to, is a property of
>sexual encounters. On my judgment of principled abstinence, see
>elsewhere.
Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
>I assure you that you don't have to say anything more than once to get
>my attention. Likewise, I assure you that I bestow an adequate amount
>of care on all my writing.
Evidently false, judging my the above counterexample. It is also, of
course, not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Michael Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec3.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>I prefer to maintain this discussion in its original venues.
GWS:
>Fine. I now expect you to keep it relevant to the subject of books.
>I also expect you to try to develop your ideas yourself, instead of
>merely referencing a book. Good luck!
I am developing my ideas, in my own windbag way. As for relevance to
books, it is not less than that of an average article in the venue in
question.
MZ:
>>If Gene feels that there exists a _sui generis_ politics of
>>homosexuality, as distinct from of contrasted with, the politics of
>>bestiality, bondage, fetishism, drug addiction, voyerism, necrophilia,
>>alcoholism, or masturbation, or indeed, the politics of blue eyes,
>>crooked teeth, ingrown hairs, long eyelashes, lantern chins,
>>haemorrhoids, high foreheads, or hammer toes, he is welcome to direct
>>his responses to the appropriate channels.
GWS:
>I wouldn't expect a crook-toothed, hangnailed product of a
>masturbatory bestiality scene to know this, but in fact there is a
>group alt.politics.homosexuality, which by convention is a venue for
>haemorrodal het boys to argue with normal people.
First of all, this is not a political question. Secondly, I resent
the implication that there is more than one kind of politics. This
said, feel free to do as you like.
GWS:
>>>MZ is off once again on the topic of why homosexuality is bad. His
>>>arguments have the same characteristic as before, namely that for the
>>>most part they don't exist.
MZ:
>>It is interesting to note that your lengthy alleged paraphrase of my
>>position includes no substantive citations therefrom.
GWS:
>Actually, I saved up the whole exchange up to that point, with the
>idea of including substantive citations. I quite honestly didn't find
>any that were cogent enough to seem worth including. As I said, you
>don't really give an argument. You just mention some book or other.
>You really would have been happier in the 12th century, citing like
>mad while a cloud of dust arises before our wondering eyes.
Perhaps you ought to spend more time thinking about the implications
of what is said, including your own words.
GWS:
>As an experiment, I suggest this: suppose you have a nephew who comes
>to you and tells you about his homosexual feelings. You want to talk
>him out of it. He is intelligent, but not well-read. He will not
>repond well to a citation from Plato, or Kant, or Sartre, or whomever.
>Explain to him in your own words what your objection is. Try to write
>in a way that an intelligent but not well read fourteen year old could
>follow it.
You have no idea how close you get! And yet, there is one substantive
difference: unlike yourself, my nephew has no trouble following my
convoluted heuristic thread.
GWS:
>I'm not sure you are capable of this, but you should try. When I was
>a philosophy TA I was driven nuts by the people who would just quote
>so-and-so without giving an argument themselves, and it doesn't work
>any better on the net.
You must work on figuring out the difference between quotation and
allusion. As for your pedagogical experiences, save the account for a
prospective employer.
GWS:
>In any case, I will just continue to point out to you that you haven't
>actually given an argument until you give one. Your distinction
>between essential and inessential sterility was a start, but it needs
>to be fleshed out when people rebut it. Don't just try to drown the
>rebuttal in a bath of words--argue!
Pay more attention, and you will see the rebuttals.
GWS:
>Geez, I'm sounding like a philosophy TA again.
Not a very good one though.
GWS:
>>>He especially likes Kant and Plato, who both give arguments which
>>>prove that sex is bad and then need to figure out why it is OK
>>>to engage in sex for reproduction.
MZ:
>>As a purely intellectual exercise, you might consider going back to
>>the article whose contents you have prudently elided, and explain, why
>>my statement that I am not arguing as a Kantian, should be interpreted
>>as proof of my especial liking for the Koenigsberg wanker.
GWS:
>Are you a Platonist? In my previous go around on this, I noticed you
>using Plato, Kant and Sartre, without paying much attention to the
>fact that their points of view are contradictory. You once made a
>comment to the effect that it was illegitimate to have any moral
>opinions at all unless you hand read the Koenisberg wanker (that's a
>part of Russia now--I thought you'd be proud.) All of this gave me
>the idea that you liked him. I guess I should have known better.
Two points: I have never used Plato, Kant, or Sartre, either as means or
as ends in themselves; moreover, I have never maintained the putative
illegitimacy of having moral opinions without prior acquaintance with
any philosophical argument whatsoever. Where I come from, educated
people have a custom of using multifarious cultural allusions as a form
of conversational shorthand, without thereby implying their wholesale
endorsement of the items or positions so evoked. These latter are,
however, reasonably expected to be understood by their interlocutors.
They also have a reasonable expectation of eliciting a certain degree of
appreciation of figurative speech from their audiences. I understand
that you may be unaccustomed to any form of discourse more taxing than
cocktail party banter, but rest assured that it is never too late to
learn some style.
MZ:
>>My argument, of course, is something you would rather not address,
>>seeing how last time you had the confidence to do so, you were soon
>>reduced to pathetic whimpering.
GWS:
>It seems to me last time you retired in confusion after your Sartre
>gambit was exposed. The first thing you need to do is actually give
>your argument, so that I won't have to try to figure out what you are
>talking about from my memory of what Kant and Plato said.
I shan't argue about what happened last time, except to note that in my
work, I tend to use Sartre more as a convenient pincushion, than as any
sort of moral authority. The argument has been given, _in extenso_, in
my exchange with Mike Morris; kindly refer thereto.
MZ:
>>At this point, I remain content to
>>note that my
^^ read `your'
>> reference to Kant, which in any case was meant to apply
>>to the Categorical Imperative, rather than to the admittedly silly
>>argument in the _Metaphysical First Principles of the Doctrine of
>>Virtue_, I.i.ii/7, to which you allude, is a classic case of battling
>>Aunt Sally.
GWS:
>Well, excuse me. That is all I remember from Kant about homosexuality.
>And you are referring to philosophers again. In you, that is a bad
>habit. As your TA, I am interested in what you think, and want proof
>that you do think, not proof that you are well-read.
The reference was given in response to a reader's inquiry. I refuse to
submit to your interests; this conversation will be conducted in a
mutually agreeable manner, rather than on your own terms.
MZ:
>>This, of course, is sheer speculation, quite unrelated to any claim I
>>made here or elsewhere. But it is interesting to note your gratuitous
>>attribution to me of the jargon of authenticity, which I repeatedly
>>denounced as characteristic of precisely the sort of uncritically
>>self-regarding ethos, which is responsible for your unfortunate sexual
>>condition.
GWS:
>Note:
MZ:
>>There are two kinds of necessity which stand to be denied here: the
>>socially determined consequences of "innocent self-indulgence", and
>>the moral implications of *principled* self-indulgence, a.k.a.
>>authenticity. Which of the two do you deny?
>
>>We may never attain any degree of mutual understanding, Mike. You
>>see, in my anthropophagistic inclinations, I relish sheer cruelty in
>>the same way you seem to cherish liberal toleration.
GWS:
>You brought up the phrase. You also seem to be trying to practice
>some version of (presumably principled?) self-indulgence.
Two notes: the above allusion to principled self-indulgence, a.k.a.
authenticity, is meant to cover Charles Taylor and Richard Rorty, rather
than Sartre (not that the recognition of this fact is in any way
essential to the understanding of my point); more importantly, it is
meant to denounce, not to endorse (this would be evident to anyone who
bothered to read on). As for the provenance of sheer cruelty, and its
moral implications, they are left as an exercise for the reader.
MZ:
>>More groundless slander masquerading as argument. I submit that you
>>no absolutely nothing of my quests, just as I know nothing of your
>>theorems.
GWS:
>If you are on a quest to transcend the ego, you are going about it in
>a peculiar way. Do you really make this claim?
Yes.
GWS:
>>>The inconsistences can be seen in the details of his argument. For
>>>instance, a man having sex with a sterile women or one using birth
>>>control devices is OK, because the sterility is accidental rather than
>>>essential (a distinction in MZ's head, let us note, and not anywhere
>>>in the world.) But it doesn't matter, because his arguments really are
>>>not important to him, and therefore can hardly important to anyone
>>>else.
MZ:
>>Not accidental in case of birth control, but incidental to the nature
>>of the sexual encounter, albeit intentionally produced.
GWS:
>Why is it incidental to the nature of the sexual encounter? If the
>sexual encounter is changed in its fundamental nature by sterility,
>then it is changed. You can't coherently argue that it is changed
>when you want to claim it is changed, but not when you want to claim
>it is not. If sterility is intrinsically part of homosexual
>encounters, it is also intrinsically a part of encounters using a
>condom, for instance.
My claim is that the sexual encounter is changed in its fundamental
nature by *fundamental* sterility; your interpretive task is to find out
exactly what aspect of human sexuality I consider as fundamental. Given
that copious references have been made to biological necessity and
identity, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out that gender trumps
everything else.
GWS:
>Go talk to a priest if you don't believe me.
Oh, but I have. But why should I take his word for it?
MZ:
>>I note in passing that you should not let it bother you that the
>>nominalism you espouse in your passing comment concerning universals
>>being in my head, rather than anywhere in the world, renders
>>mathematics, your own chosen profession, as sterile as your chosen
>>mode of sexuality.
GWS:
>What makes you so sure I'm a nominalist? Maybe I think that in this
>instance, no such distinction exists in reality. That is, it *really
>is* just in your head.
If you think so, then you should be more specific about just what sort
of distinction you take to exist only in my head, and why.
GWS:
>Moreover, I don't have a chosen mode of sexuality, so it can't be
>sterile. Furthermore, if I am sterile because I am not having sex, is
>that better or worse than if I am sterile even though having sex? Why
>or why not?
My apologies, -- I seem to recall your erstwhile advertisement of your
sexual preference. Sterility, in the sense it has been appealed to, is
a property of sexual encounters. On my judgment of principled
abstinence, see elsewhere.
GWS:
>>>In any case, I suggest that MZ make his arguments without reference of
>>>any kind to any philosopher, because he seems to do in a way which
>>>only clouds the issue. A better appreciation for good English style
>>>would also be nice.
MZ:
>>In your case, I suggest more attentive reading, and greater
>>appreciation of figures of speech and thought.
GWS:
>If you write more attentively, maybe I'll read that way.
>I repeat my suggestion above.
I assure you that you don't have to say anything more than once to get
my attention. Likewise, I assure you that I bestow an adequate amount
of care on all my writing.
>--
Steve Dyer
>cannot be played in earnest. A smidgeon of levity would improve your
>moral standards and standing to no end.
Translation: "Lighten up. Can't you take a joke?"
QED
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Steve Dyer
>people have a custom of using multifarious cultural allusions as a form
>of conversational shorthand, without thereby implying their wholesale
>endorsement of the items or positions so evoked.
That is, employing the term "cocksucker", etc. to refer to gay men does not
mean that you ENDORSE cocksucking. :-|
>These latter are,
>however, reasonably expected to be understood by their interlocutors.
>They also have a reasonable expectation of eliciting a certain degree of
>appreciation of figurative speech from their audiences.
When you elect to refer to gay men as cocksuckers, or someone
else "where you come from" calls a Jewish person a "Yid" or "Kike",
you are enjoying the expressiveness of figurative speech. Ah, the old
country--Odessa moya! It doesn't get any better than that!
>I understand
>that you may be unaccustomed to any form of discourse more taxing than
>cocktail party banter, but rest assured that it is never too late to
>learn some style.
Zeleny presumes to lecture someone on style. Snort.
>My claim is that the sexual encounter is changed in its fundamental
>nature by *fundamental* sterility; your interpretive task is to find out
>exactly what aspect of human sexuality I consider as fundamental.
Perhaps we could say that Zeleny's precise problem (apart from his inability
to communicate in written English) is that he spends an unhealthy amount of
dwelling (and writing) on the fundament.
Michael Siemon
>I don't have anything to add to this extraordinary paragraph [ of the
all-too-imitiable MZ ] ; I just wanted to see it again.
I can understand [ "I am large; I contain multitudes" ] your finding
Zeleny a convenient source of pornography. I must protest [ in the
name of civility ] your exercising this proclivity in public.
--
Michael L. Siemon "We honour founders of these starving cities
m...@panix.com Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
They built by rivers and at night the water
Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Michael Zeleny
In article <1992Dec7.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec4.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
MZ:
>>First of all, this is not a political question.
GWS:
>Oh, of course. If I were to claim, in a purely theoretical way, of
>course, that Jews were subhumans resentfully determined to
>make life miserable for ordinary human beings, that would also
>not be a political question.
A tired and fallacious analogy. Unlike Jewishness (at least as
defined by the Nuremberg Laws), homosexual behavior is a matter of
deliberate choice. Do not let it bother you that the hysterical
accusations of subhumality or resentful determination to make life
miserable for ordinary human beings arise only in your fervid
imagination, and have nothing to do with any of my claims.
GWS:
>Whenever you claim some large class of people is inferior, and that
>people have a right and perhaps an obligation to denigrate them,
>that, Buster, is a political question.
Nonsense. I judge behavior, not people. I also make no claims of
inferiority. As for the right to denigrate anyone whatsoever, I take
it as guaranteed by the US Constitution.
MZ:
>>Secondly, I resent the implication that there is more than one kind of
>>politics.
GWS:
>Interesting. Did it ever occur to you that your habit of resenting
>facts may be part of your problem with the world?
Not resenting any facts is complacency. Do you think that your habit
of not resenting certain facts may be part of your problem with
yourself?
GWS:
>In ordinary discourse, there is, for instance, California politics,
>and German politics, and Democratic politics, and so forth. People
>see an advantage in drawing these sorts of distinctions, therefore
>they do. If this troubles your digestion, see a doctor.
Only bad, complacent philosophers defer to ordinary discourse. I see
no need to defer to your definition of politics, any more than I see
the need to defer to the Nazi definition of Jewishness, the Marxist
definition of freedom, or the Republican definition of family values.
GWS:
>Moreover, alt.politics.homosexuality was started with the notion of
>giving homophobes a place in which to rant. So it seems appropriate
>to me to try to direct this there. If you can be induced to actually
>give a philosophical argument, instead of constantly pretending to
>have already given one, talk.philosophy.misc would also be
>appropriate.
The argument has been given cogently enough to allow you to summarize
it elsewhere. Any pretense to the contrary reflects badly on your
intentions. If you wish to approach this matter rationally, you know
what to do.
MZ:
>>Perhaps you ought to spend more time thinking about the implications
>>of what is said, including your own words.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>You have no idea how close you get! And yet, there is one substantive
>>difference: unlike yourself, my nephew has no trouble following my
>>convoluted heuristic thread.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>You must work on figuring out the difference between quotation and
>>allusion. As for your pedagogical experiences, save the account for a
>>prospective employer.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>Pay more attention, and you will see the rebuttals.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>Two points: I have never used Plato, Kant, or Sartre, either as means or
>>as ends in themselves; moreover, I have never maintained the putative
>>illegitimacy of having moral opinions without prior acquaintance with
>>any philosophical argument whatsoever. Where I come from, educated
>>people have a custom of using multifarious cultural allusions as a form
>>of conversational shorthand, without thereby implying their wholesale
>>endorsement of the items or positions so evoked. These latter are,
>>however, reasonably expected to be understood by their interlocutors.
>>They also have a reasonable expectation of eliciting a certain degree of
>>appreciation of figurative speech from their audiences. I understand
>>that you may be unaccustomed to any form of discourse more taxing than
>>cocktail party banter, but rest assured that it is never too late to
>>learn some style.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>I shan't argue about what happened last time, except to note that in my
>>work, I tend to use Sartre more as a convenient pincushion, than as any
>>sort of moral authority. The argument has been given, _in extenso_, in
>>my exchange with Mike Morris; kindly refer thereto.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>The reference was given in response to a reader's inquiry. I refuse to
>>submit to your interests; this conversation will be conducted in a
>>mutually agreeable manner, rather than on your own terms.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>Two notes: the above allusion to principled self-indulgence, a.k.a.
>>authenticity, is meant to cover Charles Taylor and Richard Rorty, rather
>>than Sartre (not that the recognition of this fact is in any way
>>essential to the understanding of my point); more importantly, it is
>>meant to denounce, not to endorse (this would be evident to anyone who
>>bothered to read on). As for the provenance of sheer cruelty, and its
>>moral implications, they are left as an exercise for the reader.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>My claim is that the sexual encounter is changed in its fundamental
>>nature by *fundamental* sterility; your interpretive task is to find out
>>exactly what aspect of human sexuality I consider as fundamental.
GWS:
>No it isn't--*your* task is to develop your argument yourself. I've
>tried to do it for you twice now.
You did well enough last time. Consequently, you should be able to
criticise, instead of ranting.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>Given that copious references have been made to biological necessity
>>and identity, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out that gender
>>trumps everything else.
GWS:
>You haven't even defined gender, except to suggest that genotype is
>its essence--which wrecks any argument you would care to make using
>this definition.
Huh? genotype is the essence of gender. Kindly proceed to wreck my
argument.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>If you think so, then you should be more specific about just what sort
>>of distinction you take to exist only in my head, and why.
GWS:
>The distinction between accident and essence.
I refer you to the work of Rudolph Carnap, Alonzo Church, Ruth Barcan
Marcus, Saul Kripke, Kit Fine, David Lewis, Richard Montague, and any
other formal semanticist cum modal logiciaan. Observe that it is the
quality of your alleged refutation, that warrants me to limit myself
to name-dropping, instead of giving an extended argument to refute
your nonexistent opposition. Should you choose to elaborate your
gainsaying, I shall do likewise with my claim.
GWS:
>>>Moreover, I don't have a chosen mode of sexuality, so it can't be
>>>sterile. Furthermore, if I am sterile because I am not having sex, is
>>>that better or worse than if I am sterile even though having sex? Why
>>>or why not?
MZ:
>>My apologies, -- I seem to recall your erstwhile advertisement of your
>>sexual preference.
GWS:
>Read what I wrote. Unlike most of what you write, it is simple and
>clear.
Repeat it, and I will take it under consideration.
MZ:
>>Sterility, in the sense it has been appealed to, is a property of
>>sexual encounters. On my judgment of principled abstinence, see
>>elsewhere.
GWS:
>Not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Not a rebuttal.
Refer to your own summary.
MZ:
>>I assure you that you don't have to say anything more than once to get
>>my attention. Likewise, I assure you that I bestow an adequate amount
>>of care on all my writing.
GWS:
>Evidently false, judging my the above counterexample. It is also, of
>course, not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
I give you more care than your vacuous verbigeration deserves. You
have given ample evidence of understanding my claims; if you see them
as fallacious, it is incumbent upon you to point out the faults.
Either shit, or get off the pot.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
Tim Pierce
>A tired and fallacious analogy. Unlike Jewishness (at least as
>defined by the Nuremberg Laws), homosexual behavior is a matter of
>deliberate choice.
Who cares?
Followups out of rec.arts.books.
--
____ Tim Pierce /
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / Rocks say goodbye.
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
Gene W. Smith
>You are still out of it. The literal sense is supposed to be
>transcended somewhere in the secondary school.
Is that why you don't recognize irony when I use it?
>Does the term "trivium" mean anything to you?
Does the phrase "the Middle Ages are over" mean anything to you?
>I think you are doing yourself a disservice by insisting that a game
>cannot be played in earnest. A smidgeon of levity would improve your
>moral standards and standing to no end.
The kind of nasty bigotry you put out is a game until the day someone
calls you a cocksucking faggot or a dirty kike and beats you up. Then
it ceases to be funny. The problem is not a gutter vocabulary, but a
gutter mentality. The words themselves are not "bad", nor what they
mean. It's the thought behind them which is the problem.
ara...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Empirical arguments on the "moral" nature of sex (in any form) in the 20th
century?!!! From two such respected towers of education? Tch tch. There is
nothing natural (read: right) about man - hasn't been for ages. Right only
works for the individual, as the species is out to lunch. The argument that
homosexuality is somehow "not right" only impacts on the reproductive front,
otherwise...give it a rest. This coming@ from a confirmed hetro - only because
nothing better has moved me I guess, not because I am incapable of being any-
thing else. Adaptability is homo sapien's middle name.
No more mudslinging, okay?
-j.
Tom Maddox
>No more mudslinging, okay?
Absolutely.
When you get back to Mars, you tell them the Earthlings have all
agreed: no more mudslinging.
--
Tom Maddox
tma...@netcom.com
"The Reptoids eat humans like we eat chickens."
Alex Alexander
Michael Zeleny
twpi...@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>A tired and fallacious analogy. Unlike Jewishness (at least as
>>defined by the Nuremberg Laws), homosexual behavior is a matter of
>>deliberate choice.
TP:
>Who cares?
I do.
TP:
>Followups out of rec.arts.books.
Get the spinsters off, and I will follow.
Until that time, piss off, Pierce.
>--
>____ Tim Pierce /
>\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
cordially,
Michael Zeleny
dy...@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>Where I come from, educated
>>people have a custom of using multifarious cultural allusions as a form
>>of conversational shorthand, without thereby implying their wholesale
>>endorsement of the items or positions so evoked.
SD:
>That is, employing the term "cocksucker", etc. to refer to gay men does not
>mean that you ENDORSE cocksucking. :-|
I wonder: do you believe that your sexual practices stand in need of
my endorsement, and if so, why?
MZ:
>>These latter are,
>>however, reasonably expected to be understood by their interlocutors.
>>They also have a reasonable expectation of eliciting a certain degree of
>>appreciation of figurative speech from their audiences.
SD:
>When you elect to refer to gay men as cocksuckers, or someone
>else "where you come from" calls a Jewish person a "Yid" or "Kike",
>you are enjoying the expressiveness of figurative speech. Ah, the old
>country--Odessa moya! It doesn't get any better than that!
You have my express dispensation to refer to me, or any other member
of my tribe, as a Yid, a Hebe, a kike, a Christ-killer, a sheeny, or a
Red Sea pedestrian. Whatever makes you happy.
As for my chosen epithet, it only applies to you if you choose to suck
cock. Simple, ain't it?
MZ:
>>I understand
>>that you may be unaccustomed to any form of discourse more taxing than
>>cocktail party banter, but rest assured that it is never too late to
>>learn some style.
SD:
>Zeleny presumes to lecture someone on style. Snort.
Try not to ingest your phlegm, old thing, -- it is much more unhealthy
than cocksucking.
MZ:
>>My claim is that the sexual encounter is changed in its fundamental
>>nature by *fundamental* sterility; your interpretive task is to find out
>>exactly what aspect of human sexuality I consider as fundamental.
SD:
>Perhaps we could say that Zeleny's precise problem (apart from his inability
>to communicate in written English) is that he spends an unhealthy amount of
>dwelling (and writing) on the fundament.
With material like this, in another fifty years you and your tapeworm
could make it to the homo retirement farm circuit in the Catskills.
>--
>Steve Dyer
>dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
cordially,
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>A tired and fallacious analogy. Unlike Jewishness (at least as
>defined by the Nuremberg Laws), homosexual behavior is a matter of
>deliberate choice.
I notice you do not confine yourself to condemning homosexual
behavior. You make nasty comments about homosexual people, without
any knowledge at all of their sexual behavior. You think you have a
right and perhaps a duty to put people down because of who they are.
This business of Jewishness and its definition is interesting. We
might ask what "essential Jewishness" is, and compare that to what
happens when we ask what "essential femininity" is. MZ says the
following:
>Huh? genotype is the essence of gender. Kindly proceed to wreck my
>argument.
Now, MZ claims that femininity is defined by the possession of an XX
rather than an XY chromosome structure. This leads into peculiar
complications for him. It is quite possible to be female by legal and
ordinary language definition, and not possess an XX chromosome
structure. Aside from such things as an XXX or an X0, it is quite
possible to have an XY chromosome structure but be somatically female.
Such a person is likely not even to know about this until they check
with a doctor to discover why they are infertile. MZ would claim,
contrary to common sense, that this person is a man, and that her
husband is committing an (essentially sterile) homosexual act when he
has sex with her.
Now, such a couple might have sex with the idea of having a child by
the following method--the husband's sperm is collected, and then used
to impregnate a surrogate mother. Whatever the morality of this, the
sex act is no longer essentially sterile, because it is not sterile at
all.
However, there is no particular reason why the same thing cannot be
done with a male couple, as shown by the fact that it often has been
done by a male couple. Therefore, while it might be possible to argue
that sex between women is essentially sterile, I don't see how you can
conclude that sex between men is.
In fact, an XX genotype is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
condition for being a woman, as ordinarily understood. If there is an
essence to being female, this isn't it. Moreover, heterosexual sex is
neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a sex act to lead,
in causal sequence, to offspring. So MZ's argument is nonsense.
We could get into similar difficulties if we assumed some "essence" to
being Jewish. We might have a list, say a man is Jewish if his mother
is Jewish and he has been circumcised in the correct, Orthodox manner.
This worked to some extent for the Nazis, who would sometimes test for
Jewishness by the simple expedient of removing the suspect's pants.
But it ignores the fact that someone might be born in Russia, say, and
not be circumcised, and have a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother.
But they might have been raised in such a way as to regard themselves
as Jewish, and that might be how other people think of them also. So,
they are Jewish, despite the crude essentialism which wants to claim
that they cannot be.
Putting substances and essences and accidents into the world doesn't
work--things are more complex than that. To base a moral judgment
on such dubious metaphysics just leaves me to wonder what the
*real* reasons are. This sounds like an excuse, not a reason,
because it has not been thought through consistently and is
not being applied consistently.
>Do not let it bother you that the hysterical accusations of
>subhumality or resentful determination to make life miserable for
>ordinary human beings arise only in your fervid imagination, and have
>nothing to do with any of my claims.
They arose in the fervid imagination of Herr Hitler, who was the
fellow I was referring to. If you saw yourself in those remarks, it's
worth thinking about why.
>Nonsense. I judge behavior, not people.
Not true. You know nothing about my behavior, but you presumed to
judge me.
>I also make no claims of inferiority.
To say that someone is morally degenerate is to make a claim of
inferiority.
>Only bad, complacent philosophers defer to ordinary discourse.
I suggest a dose of bad, complacent philosophers like Wittgenstein
would do you a lot of good.
>The argument has been given cogently enough to allow you to summarize
>it elsewhere.
That was not a summary. I expanded on what you said, by filling in
the blanks as best I could. And the result was not a real argument,
but a sort of outline for one.
>MZ:
>>>You have no idea how close you get! And yet, there is one substantive
>>>difference: unlike yourself, my nephew has no trouble following my
>>>convoluted heuristic thread.
Why not explain it that way to us?
>>The distinction between accident and essence.
>I refer you to the work of Rudolph Carnap, Alonzo Church, Ruth Barcan
>Marcus, Saul Kripke, Kit Fine, David Lewis, Richard Montague, and any
>other formal semanticist cum modal logician.
This is your usual bullshit. While I am happy to see you enlist
homosexuals in support of your argument, I guess, it is up to *you* to
explain how Montague's grammar or Kripke's semantics or Carnap's
similarity circles or Church's definition of computability, or
whatever else you may be thinking of, consists of or even supports the
claim that there are accidents and essences in the world which are
metaphysically real and morally significant.
Name dropping is bullshit. Name droppers who use this in place of
giving an argument are full of that substance.
To repeat--not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
Ken Arromdee
>We could get into similar difficulties if we assumed some "essence" to
>being Jewish. We might have a list, say a man is Jewish if his mother
>is Jewish and he has been circumcised in the correct, Orthodox manner.
>This worked to some extent for the Nazis, who would sometimes test for
>Jewishness by the simple expedient of removing the suspect's pants.
>But it ignores the fact that someone might be born in Russia, say, and
>not be circumcised, and have a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother.
>But they might have been raised in such a way as to regard themselves
>as Jewish, and that might be how other people think of them also. So,
>they are Jewish, despite the crude essentialism which wants to claim
>that they cannot be.
I suppose Judaism is "crude essentialism".
According to Judaism, you are Jewish if you're converted, or if you have a
Jewish mother. You cannot be Jewish if you're "raised in such a way to regard
yourself as Jewish". This was about the _worst_ example you could have picked.
Please, let Jews define who Jews are, no matter whether or not your philosophy
says otherwise.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of." -- K. Eric Drexler
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arro...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
James P. H. Fuller
>According to Judaism, you are Jewish if you're converted, or if you have a
>Jewish mother. You cannot be Jewish if you're "raised in such a way to regard
>yourself as Jewish". This was about the _worst_ example you could have picked.
>
>Please, let Jews define who Jews are, no matter whether or not your philosophy
>says otherwise.
There is as little agreement among Jews about who is truely Jewish as
there is among Christians about who is truely Christian. David Ben-Gurion
said a Jew is anyone who says he is -- but if you ask a Chassidic Rabbi for
a definition you will get a very different one. "Whoever has the Right of
Return to Israel" is a very broad definition but I can think of at least one
group of people who claim to be Jewish who do not have the Right of Return.
When you come right down to it, Christianity is a heretical Jewish sect.
(Or a collection of hundreds of such heretical Jewish sects.)
-- jf
Gene W. Smith
arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>I suppose Judaism is "crude essentialism".
I wasn't aware that it was a philosophical school of any kind.
>According to Judaism, you are Jewish if you're converted, or if you have a
>Jewish mother.
This is certainly the Orthodox interpretation of what a Jew is. It is
not a description of what "Jewish" means for all educated speakers of
the English language.
>You cannot be Jewish if you're "raised in such a way to regard
>yourself as Jewish". This was about the _worst_ example you could
>have picked.
Says the Orthodox Rabbi, following tradition. Other people use the
word differently. That is simply a fact. With all words which are
used in a very precise sense by people who are cognizant of that
particular precise sense, there is an idea that there are people whose
usage is canonical in some sense. Thus, the physicist will use
"energy" in a particular and precise sense, and if someone were to use
it in a way which intended that precise sense, but which in fact was
meant in a popular sense, they would be in error. But they would
*not* be in error if they said, "I'm really full of energy today", and
meant it in a popular sense.
>Please, let Jews define who Jews are, no matter whether or not your philosophy
>says otherwise.
This is circular. If we let Christians decide whether a Mormon counts
as Christian or not, how would I tell which Christians got to decide?
We therefore simply must leave it that some people will think Mr.
Soandso is a Christian, and some people will not. The Mormon himself
may well say "yes, I am", and that fact means that it might not be
very polite to tell him he is wrong. If Mr. Solomon Cohen thinks he
is a Jew, and Mr. Menachem Schneerson thinks Mr. Cohen is not a Jew, I
don't think the disagreement is something which is a matter of simple
fact that everyone must agree on, or be dismissed as ignorant.
Everyone who speaks English gets a vote on what any word in that
language means. People who are educated get a vote on educated usage.
People with specialized knowledge get a vote on special and precise
usages.
Michael Zeleny
Sounds like bullshit to me.
>No more mudslinging, okay?
Get out of my range then.
>-j.
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
unaffiliated with any respected towers of education
Ken Arromdee
>>Please, let Jews define who Jews are, no matter whether or not your philosophy
>>says otherwise.
>This is circular. If we let Christians decide whether a Mormon counts
>as Christian or not, how would I tell which Christians got to decide?
Nonsense.
There are certain people who just about _everyone_ will agree on as being
Jewish. You can start with those, and keep adding people to it until you
run out.
>We therefore simply must leave it that some people will think Mr.
>Soandso is a Christian, and some people will not. The Mormon himself
>may well say "yes, I am", and that fact means that it might not be
>very polite to tell him he is wrong. If Mr. Solomon Cohen thinks he
>is a Jew, and Mr. Menachem Schneerson thinks Mr. Cohen is not a Jew, I
>don't think the disagreement is something which is a matter of simple
>fact that everyone must agree on, or be dismissed as ignorant.
>
>Everyone who speaks English gets a vote on what any word in that
>language means. People who are educated get a vote on educated usage.
>People with specialized knowledge get a vote on special and precise
>usages.
If you want to figure out if Mormons are Christian, you can look at
(non-Mormon) Christians and see what they say. If they say "yes" or "no", you
have your answer. If they can't agree, you'll have to let the Mormons
decide. This doesn't work for Jews, since those outside the dubious cases
like J4J generally agree on how to handle those cases.
Michael Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>You are still out of it. The literal sense is supposed to be
>>transcended somewhere in the secondary school.
GWS:
>Is that why you don't recognize irony when I use it?
What you want to say, is that I don't react to your attempts at irony
in a way you deem appropriate.
MZ:
>>Does the term "trivium" mean anything to you?
GWS:
>Does the phrase "the Middle Ages are over" mean anything to you?
Speak for yourself. By most accounts, I've yet to enter mine.
MZ:
>>I think you are doing yourself a disservice by insisting that a game
>>cannot be played in earnest. A smidgeon of levity would improve your
>>moral standards and standing to no end.
GWS:
>The kind of nasty bigotry you put out is a game until the day someone
>calls you a cocksucking faggot or a dirty kike and beats you up. Then
>it ceases to be funny. The problem is not a gutter vocabulary, but a
>gutter mentality. The words themselves are not "bad", nor what they
>mean. It's the thought behind them which is the problem.
My dear Mr Smith, -- when someone calls me a dirty kike, I smile; when
that someone tries to beat me up, I hit back. I propose that you do
likewise, _mutatis mutandis_. Better yet, should I happen to come
across someone beating you up for being a cocksucking faggot, I
promise to shoot them on the spot. In the meantime, I propose that
you stop your attempts to stifle my, or anyone else's, free thought.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
Michael Zeleny
gsm...@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec7.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
MZ:
>>A tired and fallacious analogy. Unlike Jewishness (at least as
>>defined by the Nuremberg Laws), homosexual behavior is a matter of
>>deliberate choice.
GWS:
>I notice you do not confine yourself to condemning homosexual
>behavior. You make nasty comments about homosexual people, without
>any knowledge at all of their sexual behavior. You think you have a
>right and perhaps a duty to put people down because of who they are.
Mr Smith, as I have already had an occasion to explain to you, I make
nasty comments about all sorts of people, without any knowledge of, or
any regard for, their sexual behavior. I think I have a moral and
political right, and perhaps a duty, to put people down because of
what they say and do. As for what people are, my notion is very
simple and straightforward: featherless bipeds.
GWS:
>This business of Jewishness and its definition is interesting. We
>might ask what "essential Jewishness" is, and compare that to what
>happens when we ask what "essential femininity" is. MZ says the
>following:
MZ:
>>Huh? genotype is the essence of gender. Kindly proceed to wreck my
>>argument.
GWS:
>Now, MZ claims that femininity is defined by the possession of an XX
>rather than an XY chromosome structure. This leads into peculiar
>complications for him. It is quite possible to be female by legal and
>ordinary language definition, and not possess an XX chromosome
>structure. Aside from such things as an XXX or an X0, it is quite
>possible to have an XY chromosome structure but be somatically female.
>Such a person is likely not even to know about this until they check
>with a doctor to discover why they are infertile. MZ would claim,
>contrary to common sense, that this person is a man, and that her
>husband is committing an (essentially sterile) homosexual act when he
>has sex with her.
Note that I am not at all interested in importing legal and ordinary
language definitions into my moral discourse. In such cases, I shall
be happy to defer to Quine in pronouncing that hard cases make for bad
rules. Kindly stick to the common instance of femininity.
GWS:
>Now, such a couple might have sex with the idea of having a child by
>the following method--the husband's sperm is collected, and then used
>to impregnate a surrogate mother. Whatever the morality of this, the
>sex act is no longer essentially sterile, because it is not sterile at
>all.
>
>However, there is no particular reason why the same thing cannot be
>done with a male couple, as shown by the fact that it often has been
>done by a male couple. Therefore, while it might be possible to argue
>that sex between women is essentially sterile, I don't see how you can
>conclude that sex between men is.
Sorry, but the sex between men is still essentially sterile in its
nature, regardless of anything ensuing _ex post facto_. As a good
Aristotelian, you should try to concentrate on the aspects of a given
sexual encounter that make it what it is, and disregard the rest.
GWS:
>In fact, an XX genotype is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
>condition for being a woman, as ordinarily understood. If there is an
>essence to being female, this isn't it. Moreover, heterosexual sex is
>neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a sex act to lead,
>in causal sequence, to offspring. So MZ's argument is nonsense.
Ordinary understanding is inimical to true knowledge. Pass it on.
GWS:
>We could get into similar difficulties if we assumed some "essence" to
>being Jewish. We might have a list, say a man is Jewish if his mother
>is Jewish and he has been circumcised in the correct, Orthodox manner.
>This worked to some extent for the Nazis, who would sometimes test for
>Jewishness by the simple expedient of removing the suspect's pants.
>But it ignores the fact that someone might be born in Russia, say, and
>not be circumcised, and have a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother.
>But they might have been raised in such a way as to regard themselves
>as Jewish, and that might be how other people think of them also. So,
>they are Jewish, despite the crude essentialism which wants to claim
>that they cannot be.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
GWS:
>Putting substances and essences and accidents into the world doesn't
>work--things are more complex than that. To base a moral judgment
>on such dubious metaphysics just leaves me to wonder what the
>*real* reasons are. This sounds like an excuse, not a reason,
>because it has not been thought through consistently and is
>not being applied consistently.
This sounds like Wittgenstein's argument against the possibility of
existence of the concept of game. Sorry, but I see no reason to
accept it, either in his, or your own case. Once again, if you wish
to see a working essentialist metaphysics, look into modern research
in modal logic, e.g. by browsing through the _Journal of Philosophical
Logic_. However, if you wish to impute an ulterior motive to my
investigation, so be it.
MZ:
>>Do not let it bother you that the hysterical accusations of
>>subhumality or resentful determination to make life miserable for
>>ordinary human beings arise only in your fervid imagination, and have
>>nothing to do with any of my claims.
GWS:
>They arose in the fervid imagination of Herr Hitler, who was the
>fellow I was referring to. If you saw yourself in those remarks, it's
>worth thinking about why.
Godwin's Law claims yet another victim. If you see no rational
alternative debating technique, other than making this tired and
specious comparison, it's worth thinking about why.
MZ:
>>Nonsense. I judge behavior, not people.
GWS:
>Not true. You know nothing about my behavior, but you presumed to
>judge me.
Not at all. I judge your behavior, insofar as it is revealed to me in
your own claims. If the shoe fits, wear it.
MZ:
>>I also make no claims of inferiority.
GWS:
>To say that someone is morally degenerate is to make a claim of
>inferiority.
Your idiom, not mine.
MZ:
>>Only bad, complacent philosophers defer to ordinary discourse.
GWS:
>I suggest a dose of bad, complacent philosophers like Wittgenstein
>would do you a lot of good.
Are you enlisting him as a fellow homosexual rationalizer, or merely
as another garrulous auntie? What makes you think that I would care
one whit for his piffling pabulum?
MZ:
>>The argument has been given cogently enough to allow you to summarize
>>it elsewhere.
GWS:
>That was not a summary. I expanded on what you said, by filling in
>the blanks as best I could. And the result was not a real argument,
>but a sort of outline for one.
That should suffice for your criticism. I propose to patch the gaps,
whenever it becomes appropriate.
MZ:
>>>>You have no idea how close you get! And yet, there is one substantive
>>>>difference: unlike yourself, my nephew has no trouble following my
>>>>convoluted heuristic thread.
GWS:
>Why not explain it that way to us?
Who's that "us", kemosabe? Do I owe you an explanation?
GWS:
>>>The distinction between accident and essence.
MZ:
>>I refer you to the work of Rudolph Carnap, Alonzo Church, Ruth Barcan
>>Marcus, Saul Kripke, Kit Fine, David Lewis, Richard Montague, and any
>>other formal semanticist cum modal logician.
GWS:
>This is your usual bullshit. While I am happy to see you enlist
>homosexuals in support of your argument, I guess, it is up to *you* to
>explain how Montague's grammar or Kripke's semantics or Carnap's
>similarity circles or Church's definition of computability, or
>whatever else you may be thinking of, consists of or even supports the
>claim that there are accidents and essences in the world which are
>metaphysically real and morally significant.
>
>Name dropping is bullshit. Name droppers who use this in place of
>giving an argument are full of that substance.
Like I said in the part you elided: name dropping will suffice to
refute *your* bullshit. If you have an argument to the effect that
the distinction between accident and essence is not in the world, but
in my head, I urge you to publish it in the same sort of venue favored
by the above philosophers, all of whom rely on it in their studies of
modality. Failing that, you might elaborate on your gainsaying and
offer it to my amateurish criticism. But if you limit yourself to
your customary, ill-informed knee-jerk mockery, do not expect an
honest argument in return.
GWS:
>To repeat--not an argument that homosexuality is bad.
To repeat -- not a refutation.
Refer to your own summary.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
doesn't," considering the definition of homosexual is not ethced in stone
either. For instance, I have read that in many Hispanic cultures, only the man
who is the "submisser" is considered homosexual, and many men who consider
themselves fully heterosexual frequent male prostitues on a regular basis.
Just trying to confuse the issue a little more.
Jesse "I am not defined by my dick" Fuchs
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Mr Smith, as I have already had an occasion to explain to you, I make
>nasty comments about all sorts of people, without any knowledge of, or
>any regard for, their sexual behavior. I think I have a moral and
>political right, and perhaps a duty, to put people down because of
>what they say and do. As for what people are, my notion is very
>simple and straightforward: featherless bipeds.
I am not complaining when you exercise your beloved right to be
abusive and call people tendentious shitheads, or whatever else takes
your fancy in that department. I am pointing out to you that adding
to the world's store of the kind of mindless group-hate as appears to
animate your typical neonazi skinhead or Bosnian ethnic cleanser is
not a moral act.
>MZ:
>>>Huh? genotype is the essence of gender. Kindly proceed to wreck my
>>>argument.
>GWS:
>>Now, MZ claims that femininity is defined by the possession of an XX
>>rather than an XY chromosome structure. This leads into peculiar
>>complications for him. It is quite possible to be female by legal and
>>ordinary language definition, and not possess an XX chromosome
>>structure. Aside from such things as an XXX or an X0, it is quite
>>possible to have an XY chromosome structure but be somatically female.
>>Such a person is likely not even to know about this until they check
>>with a doctor to discover why they are infertile. MZ would claim,
>>contrary to common sense, that this person is a man, and that her
>>husband is committing an (essentially sterile) homosexual act when he
>>has sex with her.
>Note that I am not at all interested in importing legal and ordinary
>language definitions into my moral discourse. In such cases, I shall
>be happy to defer to Quine in pronouncing that hard cases make for bad
>rules. Kindly stick to the common instance of femininity.
One can be a Quinean or one can believe in essences, but one can
scarcely do both. Quine's position is about as far from an
endorsement of Aristotelean metaphysics as it is possible to get. So
these seems to be more name dropping bullshit--you don't accept
Quine's approach to language and categories of thought at all to any
degree, but you are attempting to use Quine as a weapon somehow. But
the idea that "hard cases makes for bad rules" *means* that you have
dropped the idea of essence already, and are approaching conceptual
categories in a quite different way.
You said there is a real something, an essence, actually in the world
which distinguishes men and women, and identified this as being
genotype. Now, either you mean this and are willing to use it as a
basis of argument, or you do not. Which is it? If you want to adopt
a consistently Quinine approach to language, go right ahead, but it
makes your argument complete nonsense from the get go if you do.
>GWS:
>>Now, such a couple might have sex with the idea of having a child by
>>the following method--the husband's sperm is collected, and then used
>>to impregnate a surrogate mother. Whatever the morality of this, the
>>sex act is no longer essentially sterile, because it is not sterile at
>>all.
>>However, there is no particular reason why the same thing cannot be
>>done with a male couple, as shown by the fact that it often has been
>>done by a male couple. Therefore, while it might be possible to argue
>>that sex between women is essentially sterile, I don't see how you can
>>conclude that sex between men is.
>Sorry, but the sex between men is still essentially sterile in its
>nature, regardless of anything ensuing _ex post facto_.
This is not an argument.
What is "essentially sterile"? If a sexual act can potentially lead
act lead to children, explain precisely how and why it is essentially
sterile anyway.
>As a good Aristotelian, you should try to concentrate on the aspects
>of a given sexual encounter that make it what it is, and disregard the
>rest.
This is not an argument.
I am not any kind of Aristotelian, and it seems to me that it is your
job to explain which items you will pick out to be the ones which are
essential, and then explain *why* they are essential.
>GWS:
>>In fact, an XX genotype is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
>>condition for being a woman, as ordinarily understood. If there is an
>>essence to being female, this isn't it. Moreover, heterosexual sex is
>>neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a sex act to lead,
>>in causal sequence, to offspring. So MZ's argument is nonsense.
>Ordinary understanding is inimical to true knowledge. Pass it on.
This is not an argument.
If you can't refute what I am saying, it would be more honest to simply
admit it.
>Once again, if you wish to see a working essentialist metaphysics,
>look into modern research in modal logic, e.g. by browsing through the
>_Journal of Philosophical Logic_. However, if you wish to impute an
>ulterior motive to my investigation, so be it.
This is not an argument.
If you think modal logic can be used to show that homosexuality is
bad, by all means go for it. But don't just put this bullshit
forward. Name dropping and journal dropping and mentions of modal
logic are simply complete and utter bullshit. If you have an
argument, give it. If you don't, shut up.
>MZ:
>>>I also make no claims of inferiority.
>GWS:
>>To say that someone is morally degenerate is to make a claim of
>>inferiority.
>Your idiom, not mine.
Fine, then what *are* you claiming?
>Are you enlisting him as a fellow homosexual rationalizer, or merely
>as another garrulous auntie? What makes you think that I would care
>one whit for his piffling pabulum?
You quote with approval people who have been strongly influenced by
Wittgenstein but dismiss him as a garrulous auntie. Hmmm....
>That should suffice for your criticism. I propose to patch the gaps,
>whenever it becomes appropriate.
This is, of course, untrue. I have pointed out several gaps, and
you have made no attempt at all to patch them.
>Like I said in the part you elided: name dropping will suffice to
>refute *your* bullshit. If you have an argument to the effect that
>the distinction between accident and essence is not in the world, but
>in my head, I urge you to publish it in the same sort of venue favored
>by the above philosophers, all of whom rely on it in their studies of
>modality.
That would be beside the point at the moment. I don't believe in this
Aristotelean BS, but I haven't based any argument on that. Assume
there are actual essences in the world, and as I've pointed out, you
still haven't gotten your idiotic "argument" to work. All you do is
define things in tendentious shitheaded ways in an attempt to cook
your desired conclusion as being the supposed outcome of an
"argument".
Thus, masturbation is not sex. Your reasons for thinking this means
that bestiality and necrophilia aren't sex either, even though you
have already condemned them as sexual misdeeds. No doubt that won't
disturb you either, because your so-called "reasons" are not the basis
for your beliefs anyway.
You rant on about modal logic, but what your tiny excuse for a brain
has failed to notice is that *I* am the one using modality to try to
make sense of your claims about essences, and you are the one spouting
off a load of bull instead of answering. If X is an essential
property of being female implies that it is necessarily the case that
if a person is female, then they have property X, then that definition
has consequences. For instance, if having an XX genotype is an
essential property of being female, it follows that it is necessarily
the case that any woman will have an XX genotype. Quine may say that
"hard cases make for bad rules", but only a complete pinhead would say
that if they have already adopted a modal definition of essential
property involving necessity.
Moreover, you haven`t explained how essences as they might be
construed by use of modal logic has anything to do with teleology, or
how you can get a prescriptive teleology at all. You are not using
the belief system of Thomas Aquinas in concluding that teleology gives
us the correct moral attitudes about sex, and you haven't made clear
why it should or how it could. You've already taken note of the
difficulty of using evolution to make this work, without providing an
alternative.
Michael Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>Mr Smith, as I have already had an occasion to explain to you, I make
>>nasty comments about all sorts of people, without any knowledge of, or
>>any regard for, their sexual behavior. I think I have a moral and
>>political right, and perhaps a duty, to put people down because of
>>what they say and do. As for what people are, my notion is very
>>simple and straightforward: featherless bipeds.
GWS:
>I am not complaining when you exercise your beloved right to be
>abusive and call people tendentious shitheads, or whatever else takes
>your fancy in that department. I am pointing out to you that adding
>to the world's store of the kind of mindless group-hate as appears to
>animate your typical neonazi skinhead or Bosnian ethnic cleanser is
>not a moral act.
Note that so far you have failed to substantiate your charge of
mindlessness, lacking proof of which, your similes remain bereft of
moral force. For if my argument is valid, my denunciation of
homosexual sex is no less moral than your implicit disdain for "your
typical neonazi skinhead or Bosnian ethnic cleanser".
MZ:
>>>>Huh? genotype is the essence of gender. Kindly proceed to wreck my
>>>>argument.
GWS:
>>>Now, MZ claims that femininity is defined by the possession of an XX
>>>rather than an XY chromosome structure. This leads into peculiar
>>>complications for him. It is quite possible to be female by legal and
>>>ordinary language definition, and not possess an XX chromosome
>>>structure. Aside from such things as an XXX or an X0, it is quite
>>>possible to have an XY chromosome structure but be somatically female.
>>>Such a person is likely not even to know about this until they check
>>>with a doctor to discover why they are infertile. MZ would claim,
>>>contrary to common sense, that this person is a man, and that her
>>>husband is committing an (essentially sterile) homosexual act when he
>>>has sex with her.
MZ:
>>Note that I am not at all interested in importing legal and ordinary
>>language definitions into my moral discourse. In such cases, I shall
>>be happy to defer to Quine in pronouncing that hard cases make for bad
>>rules. Kindly stick to the common instance of femininity.
GWS:
>One can be a Quinean or one can believe in essences, but one can
>scarcely do both. Quine's position is about as far from an
>endorsement of Aristotelean metaphysics as it is possible to get. So
>these seems to be more name dropping bullshit--you don't accept
>Quine's approach to language and categories of thought at all to any
>degree, but you are attempting to use Quine as a weapon somehow. But
>the idea that "hard cases makes for bad rules" *means* that you have
>dropped the idea of essence already, and are approaching conceptual
>categories in a quite different way.
One can use Hasse diagrams, without subscribing to the philosophy of
the NSDAP. I use Quine as a convenient, nay, excellent, source of
aphorisms and arguments, without thereby committing myself to his
parsimonious metaphysical premisses. If you find my identification of
the aphorism with its author, to be an instance of "name dropping
bullshit", that's entirely your prerogative. But your contention that
"the idea that "hard cases makes for bad rules" *means* that [I] have
dropped the idea of essence already" remains unsubstantiated, insofar
as the same methodological principle may be accurately attributed to
Plato and Aristotle.
GWS:
>You said there is a real something, an essence, actually in the world
>which distinguishes men and women, and identified this as being
>genotype. Now, either you mean this and are willing to use it as a
>basis of argument, or you do not. Which is it? If you want to adopt
>a consistently Quinine approach to language, go right ahead, but it
>makes your argument complete nonsense from the get go if you do.
Kindly attempt to read my argument as stated. I commit myself to no
more and no less, than the consequences of my explicitly stated
position. My approach to language is consistently Platonic, Fregean,
and Churchian; Quine is relevant only as outlined above.
GWS:
>>>Now, such a couple might have sex with the idea of having a child by
>>>the following method--the husband's sperm is collected, and then used
>>>to impregnate a surrogate mother. Whatever the morality of this, the
>>>sex act is no longer essentially sterile, because it is not sterile at
>>>all.
>>>
>>>However, there is no particular reason why the same thing cannot be
>>>done with a male couple, as shown by the fact that it often has been
>>>done by a male couple. Therefore, while it might be possible to argue
>>>that sex between women is essentially sterile, I don't see how you can
>>>conclude that sex between men is.
MZ:
>>Sorry, but the sex between men is still essentially sterile in its
>>nature, regardless of anything ensuing _ex post facto_.
GWS:
>This is not an argument.
Correct, -- it is a deflation of your attempted counterexample.
GWS:
>What is "essentially sterile"? If a sexual act can potentially lead
>act lead to children, explain precisely how and why it is essentially
>sterile anyway.
In your example, what potentially leads to children, is not an
inherent part of the act itself. At the most, it is a consequence of
an additional, incidental action, which admittedly depends on its
physical issue. But the nature of this dependence is extraneous to
the coupling, is it is. Likewise, a man who manufactures lead balls
is not thereby killing an animal, shot with a rifle loaded with his
product. End of this discussion.
MZ:
>>As a good Aristotelian, you should try to concentrate on the aspects
>>of a given sexual encounter that make it what it is, and disregard the
>>rest.
GWS:
>This is not an argument.
Correct, -- this is a methodological guideline.
GWS:
>I am not any kind of Aristotelian, and it seems to me that it is your
>job to explain which items you will pick out to be the ones which are
>essential, and then explain *why* they are essential.
I have done the former; as for the latter, I choose the genotype as
the fundamental essence of gender, for lack of other plausible,
empirically validated candidates. As for what constitutes the
intrinsic nature of an act, as distinct from its consequences, the
distinction ought to be familiar to anyone who presumes to engage in a
philosophical argument. I shan't drop any names, but feel free to
refer to an encyclopedia of philosophy.
GWS:
>>>In fact, an XX genotype is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
>>>condition for being a woman, as ordinarily understood. If there is an
>>>essence to being female, this isn't it. Moreover, heterosexual sex is
>>>neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a sex act to lead,
>>>in causal sequence, to offspring. So MZ's argument is nonsense.
MZ:
>>Ordinary understanding is inimical to true knowledge. Pass it on.
GWS:
>This is not an argument.
Nor is the unsupported citing of ordinary language usage, which has
been judged irrelevant to philosophical discourse by thinkers from
Aristotle to the moderns, -- Descartes, Hobbes, and Locke, and beyond.
GWS:
>If you can't refute what I am saying, it would be more honest to simply
>admit it.
Having noted the irrelevance of extrinsic causal sequences above, I
only had to observe the speciousness of your appeal to "ordinary
understanding". I *define* a woman as a featherless biped with XX
genotype, and appropriate phenotype; _mutatis mutandis_ for a man.
For the philosophical legitimacy of this definition, see the names
dropped above.
MZ:
>>Once again, if you wish to see a working essentialist metaphysics,
>>look into modern research in modal logic, e.g. by browsing through the
>>_Journal of Philosophical Logic_. However, if you wish to impute an
>>ulterior motive to my investigation, so be it.
GWS:
>This is not an argument.
>
>If you think modal logic can be used to show that homosexuality is
>bad, by all means go for it. But don't just put this bullshit
>forward. Name dropping and journal dropping and mentions of modal
>logic are simply complete and utter bullshit. If you have an
>argument, give it. If you don't, shut up.
I need modal logic only to legitimize the appeal to a certain
ontology, which you repeatedly denounced as an incoherent mediaeval
relic. In fact, many -- perhaps most -- metaphysicians of modality
are committed to the position that having his peculiar genotype is a
necessary property of any living individual. But this strong
essentialism is unnecessary for my purposes, insofar as I elect to
implicitly regard individual identity as partially constituted by
gender. To use the professional jargon, in the course of this inquiry
into the gender-dependent morality of sexual contact, I only need to
consider such possible worlds, where the partners' gender identity is
the same as in the actual case.
MZ:
>>>>I also make no claims of inferiority.
GWS:
>>>To say that someone is morally degenerate is to make a claim of
>>>inferiority.
MZ:
>>Your idiom, not mine.
GWS:
>Fine, then what *are* you claiming?
Moral deficiency, blameworthiness, even depravity, -- take your pick.
Degeneracy, on the other hand, is reserved for the followers of
Lombroso and their ilk.
MZ:
>>Are you enlisting him as a fellow homosexual rationalizer, or merely
>>as another garrulous auntie? What makes you think that I would care
>>one whit for his piffling pabulum?
GWS:
>You quote with approval people who have been strongly influenced by
>Wittgenstein but dismiss him as a garrulous auntie. Hmmm....
I have the greatest respect for some people, who have been strongly
influenced by Wittgenstein. However, in this case, respect is not
transitive. Nor is influence.
MZ:
>>That should suffice for your criticism. I propose to patch the gaps,
>>whenever it becomes appropriate.
GWS:
>This is, of course, untrue. I have pointed out several gaps, and
>you have made no attempt at all to patch them.
See above.
MZ:
>>Like I said in the part you elided: name dropping will suffice to
>>refute *your* bullshit. If you have an argument to the effect that
>>the distinction between accident and essence is not in the world, but
>>in my head, I urge you to publish it in the same sort of venue favored
>>by the above philosophers, all of whom rely on it in their studies of
>>modality.
GWS:
>That would be beside the point at the moment. I don't believe in this
>Aristotelean BS, but I haven't based any argument on that. Assume
>there are actual essences in the world, and as I've pointed out, you
>still haven't gotten your idiotic "argument" to work. All you do is
>define things in tendentious shitheaded ways in an attempt to cook
>your desired conclusion as being the supposed outcome of an
>"argument".
Coming from you, I take this as a compliment.
GWS:
>Thus, masturbation is not sex. Your reasons for thinking this means
>that bestiality and necrophilia aren't sex either, even though you
>have already condemned them as sexual misdeeds. No doubt that won't
>disturb you either, because your so-called "reasons" are not the basis
>for your beliefs anyway.
Call them parasexual misdeeds, if you must, and see my reply to Mike
Morris.
GWS:
>You rant on about modal logic, but what your tiny excuse for a brain
>has failed to notice is that *I* am the one using modality to try to
>make sense of your claims about essences, and you are the one spouting
>off a load of bull instead of answering.
You are ranting again, Mr Smith.
GWS:
> If X is an essential
>property of being female implies that it is necessarily the case that
>if a person is female, then they have property X, then that definition
>has consequences. For instance, if having an XX genotype is an
>essential property of being female, it follows that it is necessarily
>the case that any woman will have an XX genotype.
Correct. Nor have I ever denied my commitment to this conclusion.
GWS:
> Quine may say that
>"hard cases make for bad rules", but only a complete pinhead would say
>that if they have already adopted a modal definition of essential
>property involving necessity.
Yes, a pinhead like Aristotle, who would strive to discover a
paradigmatic case, and compare everything else to it. You really
crack me up, old thing.
Hard cases make for bad rules, only if you insist on combining them
with pigheaded loyalty to preconceived notions of common law and usage.
GWS:
>Moreover, you haven`t explained how essences as they might be
>construed by use of modal logic has anything to do with teleology, or
>how you can get a prescriptive teleology at all. You are not using
>the belief system of Thomas Aquinas in concluding that teleology gives
>us the correct moral attitudes about sex, and you haven't made clear
>why it should or how it could. You've already taken note of the
>difficulty of using evolution to make this work, without providing an
>alternative.
The bases for my prescriptive teleology have been stated elsewhere.
Do not expect me to repeat everything for your sole benefit.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
Gene W. Smith
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Note that so far you have failed to substantiate your charge of
>mindlessness, lacking proof of which, your similes remain bereft of
>moral force.
You want me to substantiate my charge of mindlessness? OK, Little
Boy, what follows is my summary of your argument, as annotated and
approved by you, translated into the language of modal logic, which
you claim to be the way you are defining those essences.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
$We start with the argument that the morally relevant *function* of sex
$is reproductive (some discussion of biology would be nice here, this
$isn't as clear or obvious as people might think it is). Therefore,
$the essence of sex is reproductive. Also, the only good sex is that
$which involves its essence. Therefore, sex must be done in such a way
$that the essential or substantial nature of sex is respected. That
$means we can tamper with accidents, like condoms or sterility. But we
$can't tamper with substance.
>Thank you for summarizing for me.
This now becomes:
We start with the argument that the morally relevant function of sex
is reproductive. This means that the essence of sex is reproductive,
that is, it is necessarily the case that sex is reproductive, i.e.
sex is reproductive in all possible worlds. The only good sex is that
which involves its essence. Therefore, the only good sex is that
which is reproductive. However, it is OK to have sex in such a way
that sex is not reproductive, just so long as it still remains the
case that sex is necessarily reproductive. However, it is bad to have
sex which is necessarily not reproductive, i.e. not reproductive in
any possible world, because the sex is reproductive in all possible
worlds, and also the only good sex is that which is reproductive in
all possible worlds.
This complete gibberish is now followed by:
$Men and women are different in essence, so homosexual sex essentially
$rather than accidentally is not reproductive. Therefore, it is
$perfectly all right for MZ to boink his girlfriend while wearing a
$condom, at least if he has checked her DNA to see that she is really
$XX and not one of those women who are XY but just didn't respond to
$testosterone in the womb. But homosexuality is bad, and you should
$faint with horror at the mere thought of it.
This becomes:
Men and women differ in all possible worlds, since it is necessarily
the case that a man has an XY genotype and a woman has an XX genotype.
Since having the same genotype entails not being reproductive in any
possible world, it is morally bad for two people with the same
genotype to have sex, since their sex is not reproductive in all
possible worlds, whereas in fact sex *is* reproductive in all possible
worlds.
It is all right to for one person to have sex with another so long as
they have been to a doctor and made sure that they have opposite
genotypes. This is true even if the woman is sterile or the man
infertile, because in some possible world the woman would not be
sterile or the man would not be infertile. However, in no possible
world could someone who is somatically a woman but with an XY genotype
have an XX genotype, and so in fact she is actually a man, and
heterosexual sex with her is really homosexual, whereas lesbian sex
with her is heterosexual and in fact entirely free from blame.
Moreover, it is always fine to have sex using birth control devices,
because in some possible world you might not be using birth control
devices. This situation, where a certain form of sex is reproductive
in some possible world, but not in this one, is morally good, because
it does not contradict the fact that sex is reproductive in all
possible worlds, whereas if the sex is not reproductive in any
possible world it would contradict the fact that sex is reproductive
in all possible worlds, and therefore be bad.
Because homosexual sex is not reproductive in all possible worlds,
whereas sex in fact is reproductive in all possible worlds,
homosexual sex is a grave moral transgression, nearly as
bad as murder, and abusing homosexuals is therefore a highly
moral act.
GWS:
>> Clear?
>Ever so.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>I need modal logic only to legitimize the appeal to a certain
>ontology, which you repeatedly denounced as an incoherent mediaeval
>relic.
You need more than that. I think you need psychiatric help if you
think you have made a coherent argument via modal logic, Little Boy.
>In fact, many -- perhaps most -- metaphysicians of modality
>are committed to the position that having his peculiar genotype is a
>necessary property of any living individual.
Oh? I could poke tons of holes in this complete BS, but why bother...
>> If X is an essential
>>property of being female implies that it is necessarily the case that
>>if a person is female, then they have property X, then that definition
>>has consequences. For instance, if having an XX genotype is an
>>essential property of being female, it follows that it is necessarily
>>the case that any woman will have an XX genotype.
>Correct. Nor have I ever denied my commitment to this conclusion.
Proof that you are a complete idiot if any more is needed.
Michael Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>In the meantime, I propose that you stop your attempts to stifle my,
>>or anyone else's, free thought.
GWS:
>If you could be bothered to think, you would notice that I have not
>attempted to stifle your, or anyone else's, free thought. I have been
>trying to get you to think, instead of spouting bullshit. I have in
>particular been attempting to get you to think about the fact that
>some of the things you like to do are morally wrong. This wrongness
>is not the sort only discoverable n terms of obsolete metaphysical
>categories qnd outright scientific errors, but quite explicitly in
>terms of people's head's being pounded into the pavement.
I promise to retract my claims, the moment you demonstrate that they
contain "outright scientific errors". Please note that repeatedly
shooting off your profligate gob at anything your idiotic presumption
compels you to regard as an error, does not amount to a demonstration;
nor does your claim of obsolescence of my metaphysical categories
confirm anything other than your philosophical ignorance. As for your
tired and tiresome "terms of people's head's being pounded into the
pavement", I already expressed my opinion on the subject in the parts
you so coyly elided.
Kindly attempt to contain your self-righteous blather. No one is
immune to moral judgment in virtue of his actions. I do not judge you
for what you are; rather, I judge your self-professed actions for what
they are. If you are unhappy about it, see a psychiatrist.
Michael Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>Note that so far you have failed to substantiate your charge of
>>mindlessness, lacking proof of which, your similes remain bereft of
>>moral force.
GWS:
>You want me to substantiate my charge of mindlessness? OK, Little
>Boy, what follows is my summary of your argument, as annotated and
>approved by you, translated into the language of modal logic, which
>you claim to be the way you are defining those essences.
Mr Smith, I am 34 years old, stand 6' in my slippers, weigh 188lbs, and
bench press 310lbs. However, if it pleases you to address me as "Little
Boy", I have no objections, provided that you reciprocate by accepting
the honorary apellation of "Hysterical Rimadonna".
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GWS:
>$We start with the argument that the morally relevant *function* of sex
>$is reproductive (some discussion of biology would be nice here, this
>$isn't as clear or obvious as people might think it is). Therefore,
>$the essence of sex is reproductive. Also, the only good sex is that
>$which involves its essence. Therefore, sex must be done in such a way
>$that the essential or substantial nature of sex is respected. That
>$means we can tamper with accidents, like condoms or sterility. But we
>$can't tamper with substance.
MZ:
>>Thank you for summarizing for me.
GWS:
>This now becomes:
>
>We start with the argument that the morally relevant function of sex
>is reproductive.
Correct.
GWS:
> This means that the essence of sex is reproductive,
>that is, it is necessarily the case that sex is reproductive, i.e.
>sex is reproductive in all possible worlds.
Not so fast. This means that the *moral* essence of sex is reproductive
that is, it is necessarily the case that all morally praiseworthy sex is
reproductive, i.e. sex is reproductive in all deontically desirable
possible worlds.
GWS:
> The only good sex is that
>which involves its essence. Therefore, the only good sex is that
>which is reproductive.
That is, *morally* good.
GWS:
> However, it is OK to have sex in such a way
>that sex is not reproductive, just so long as it still remains the
>case that sex is necessarily reproductive.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the couple in question is *possibly* reproductive.
GWS:
> However, it is bad to have
>sex which is necessarily not reproductive, i.e. not reproductive in
>any possible world, because the sex is reproductive in all
desirable
GWS:
> possible
>worlds, and also the only good sex is that which is reproductive in
>all possible worlds.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the actual world.
I have you exactly where I wanted you, Mr Smith. It is painfully
obvious that your knowledge of modal logic is far inferior to my grasp
of category theory. As a remedial manual, I recommend the book _Modal
Logic_ by Brian F. Chellas, with particular emphasis on Chapter 6,
"Deontic logic".
GWS:
>This complete gibberish is now followed by:
GWS:
>$Men and women are different in essence, so homosexual sex essentially
>$rather than accidentally is not reproductive. Therefore, it is
>$perfectly all right for MZ to boink his girlfriend while wearing a
>$condom, at least if he has checked her DNA to see that she is really
>$XX and not one of those women who are XY but just didn't respond to
>$testosterone in the womb. But homosexuality is bad, and you should
>$faint with horror at the mere thought of it.
GWS:
>This becomes:
>
>Men and women differ in all
morally relevant
GWS:
> possible worlds, since it is necessarily
>the case that a man has an XY genotype and a woman has an XX genotype.
Analytically true, and hence correct.
GWS:
>Since having the same genotype entails not being reproductive in any
>possible world, it is morally bad for two people with the same
>genotype to have sex, since their sex is not reproductive in all
^^^
any
GWS:
>possible worlds, whereas in fact
morally praiseworthy
GWS:
> sex *is* reproductive in all possible
>worlds. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^
the actual world, whilst morally permissible sex is possibly
reproductive between the same partners, i.e. reproductive in some
possible world.
GWS:
>It is all right to for one person to have sex with another so long as
>they have been to a doctor and made sure that they have opposite
>genotypes. This is true even if the woman is sterile or the man
>infertile, because in some possible world the woman would not be
>sterile or the man would not be infertile.
Keep in mind that, in the vast majority of cases, the phenotype
corresponds to the genotype.
GWS:
> However, in no possible
>world could someone who is somatically a woman but with an XY genotype
>have an XX genotype, and so in fact she is actually a man, and
>heterosexual sex with her is really homosexual, whereas lesbian sex
>with her is heterosexual and in fact entirely free from blame.
Correct. I told you that hard cases make for bad rules. Rules must be
based on the paradigmatic cases, as per the above discussion.
GWS:
>Moreover, it is always fine to have sex using birth control devices,
>because in some possible world you might not be using birth control
>devices. This situation, where a certain form of sex is reproductive
>in some possible world, but not in this one, is morally good,
neutral, or permissible,
GWS:
> because
>it does not contradict the fact that
morally permissible
GWS:
> sex is reproductive in all
^^^
some
GWS:
>possible worlds, whereas if the sex is not reproductive in any
>possible world it would contradict the fact that
morally permissible
GWS:
> sex is
^^
ought to be
GWS:
> reproductive
>in all
^^^
some
GWS:
> possible worlds, and therefore be bad.
>
>Because homosexual sex is not reproductive in all possible worlds,
>whereas sex in fact is reproductive in all
morally desirable
GWS:
> possible worlds,
>homosexual sex is a grave moral transgression, nearly as
>bad as murder, and abusing
^^^^^^^
explaining the depravity of their ways to
GWS:
> homosexuals is therefore a highly
>moral act.
I would call this "negative dialectics", the art of elenctically
eliciting the truth from an obstreperous, obstinate nitwit, -- but,
alas, the term is already taken. How about "pedagogical battery", o
nitwit of my heart?
GWS:
>>> Clear?
MZ:
>>Ever so.
Ditto.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MZ:
>>I need modal logic only to legitimize the appeal to a certain
>>ontology, which you repeatedly denounced as an incoherent mediaeval
>>relic.
GWS:
>You need more than that. I think you need psychiatric help if you
>think you have made a coherent argument via modal logic, Little Boy.
I leave the making of arguments to you, Hysterical Rimadonna.
Henceforth, feel free to address your own summary, with my corrections.
MZ:
>>In fact, many -- perhaps most -- metaphysicians of modality
>>are committed to the position that having his peculiar genotype is a
>>necessary property of any living individual.
GWS:
>Oh? I could poke tons of holes in this complete BS, but why bother...
Indeed, why bother to expose your abject ignorance one extra time? I
refer you to _The Metaphysics of Modality_, by Graeme Forbes, Chapter 6:
"The Necessity of Origin". Also see Kit Fine's "Model Theory for Modal
Logic", _The Journal of Philosophical Logic_, 1978, 1981, and, of
course, Saul Kripke's _Naming and Necessity_, Harvard, 1980: pp. 110ff.
GWS:
>>> If X is an essential
>>>property of being female implies that it is necessarily the case that
>>>if a person is female, then they have property X, then that definition
>>>has consequences. For instance, if having an XX genotype is an
>>>essential property of being female, it follows that it is necessarily
>>>the case that any woman will have an XX genotype.
MZ:
>>Correct. Nor have I ever denied my commitment to this conclusion.
GWS:
>Proof that you are a complete idiot if any more is needed.
Not an argument.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
This is fun! Are you as clueless when you argue about mathematics? Oh
yes, you are, -- there is this tiny matter of your idiotic claim of the
ontological priority of the cardinal nymbers, in a structure built on
the backbone of the ordinals. Sayonara, nitwit!
Merlyn LeRoy
I have concluded that much from this thread...
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Gene W. Smith
In article <1992Dec11.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>Mr Smith, I am 34 years old, stand 6' in my slippers, weigh 188lbs, and
>bench press 310lbs.
At your age you should have learned to act less like a pimply-faced
geek.
Well, all good things come to an end, and I am going to a math
conference and Christmas vacation. But if anybody else wants to play,
we now have a new and even more incoherent revised standard version of
Mikhail's "argument" to play with, due to the efforts of yours truly.
It begans thusly:
$We start with the argument that the morally relevant function of sex
$is reproductive. This means that the *moral* essence of sex is
$reproductive that is, it is necessarily the case that all morally
$praiseworthy sex is reproductive, i.e. sex is reproductive in all
$deontically desirable possible worlds. The only morally good sex is
$that which involves its essence. Therefore, the only morally good sex
$is that which is reproductive.
Mikhail now wants to say:
$However, it is OK to have sex in such a way that sex is not
$reproductive, just so long as it still remains the case that sex is
$possibly reproductive. However, it is bad to have sex which is
$necessarily not reproductive, i.e. not reproductive in any possible
$world, because the desirable sex is reproductive in all possible
$worlds, and also the only good sex is that which is reproductive in
$the actual world.
The above appalling balderdash is what Mikhail has annotated and
approved. About it he now says:
>I have you exactly where I wanted you, Mr Smith. It is painfully
>obvious that your knowledge of modal logic is far inferior to my grasp
>of category theory.
Uh huh. We take note of the fact that so far, MZ hasn't demonstrated
this superior knowledge in any way. Certainly claiming the above as
his "argument" doesn't. Hoo boy.
The revised standard version now continues like this:
$Men and women differ in all morally relevant possible worlds, since it
$is necessarily the case that a man has an XY genotype and a woman has
$an XX genotype. This is in fact analytically true.
$Since having the same genotype entails not being reproductive in any
$possible world, it is morally bad for two people with the same
$genotype to have sex, since their sex is not reproductive in any
$possible world, whereas in fact morally praiseworthy sex *is*
$reproductive in the actual world, whilst morally permissible sex is
$possibly reproductive between the same partners, i.e. reproductive in
$some possible world.
$It is all right to for one person to have sex with another so long as
$they have been to a doctor and made sure that they have opposite
$genotypes. This is true even if the woman is sterile or the man
$infertile, because in some possible world the woman would not be
$sterile or the man would not be infertile. However, it should be kept
$in mind that, in the vast majority of cases, the phenotype corresponds
$to the genotype.
$However, in no possible world could someone who is somatically a woman
$but with an XY genotype have an XX genotype, and so in fact she is
$actually a man, and heterosexual sex with her is really homosexual,
$whereas lesbian sex with her is heterosexual and in fact entirely free
$from blame.
$Moreover, it is always fine to have sex using birth control devices,
$because in some possible world you might not be using birth control
$devices. This situation, where a certain form of sex is reproductive
$in some possible world, but not in this one, is morally neutral, or
$permissible, because it does not contradict the fact that morally
$permissible sex is reproductive in some possible world, whereas if the
$sex is not reproductive in any possible world it would contradict the
$fact that morally permissible sex ought to be reproductive in some
$possible world, and therefore be bad.
$Because homosexual sex is not reproductive in all possible worlds,
$whereas morally desirable sex in fact is reproductive in all morally
$desirable possible worlds, homosexual sex is a grave moral
$transgression, nearly as bad as murder, and explaining the depravity
$of their ways to homosexuals is therefore a highly moral act.
About the process which lead to the creation of the revised standard
version of the Mikhail Argument, MZ says the following:
>I would call this "negative dialectics", the art of elenctically
>eliciting the truth from an obstreperous, obstinate nitwit, -- but,
>alas, the term is already taken.
Finally MZ realizes he is a niwit! Now to get him to realize that
what I have elenctically elicited is raving nonsense...
>This is fun! Are you as clueless when you argue about mathematics?
>Oh yes, you are, -- there is this tiny matter of your idiotic claim
>of the ontological priority of the cardinal numbers, in a structure
>built on the backbone of the ordinals. Sayonara, nitwit!
Look, Pinhead, I did not say cardinal numbers were "ontologically
prior", I said they were conceptually simpler. And set theory is not
"built on the backbone" of ordinal numbers, or these would not be
defined as sets.
What a maroon!
Well, and what of the famous argument? Since I am going away, I won't
poke any holes in it. I think these are obvious enough now to
everyone, and in fact I've succeeded in doing what I wanted to do,
which was to clarify MZ's "argument" enough so that its problems are
transparent. In this I have succeeded so well that in fact we can now
see it has become raving lunacy. However, if anyone wants to
continue, there are a few issues I should bring up for Mikhail's
benefit.
Things are, shall we say, a little confused. Is morally desirable sex
that which is reproductive in this world, or that which is
reproductive in all morally desirable possible worlds? MZ says both.
What does reproductive and essentially reproductive mean? Is it
permissible to have sex when reproduction isn't possible, as he says,
and does that still mean that it is possible in some possible world?
It looks like this is one of those cases where we need to distinguish
what is possible from what is possibly possible, and so say that in
some possible world the sex possibly is reproductive.
We are in fact getting into a problem because Mikhail has screwed up
by saying sex is essentially reproductive. In fact, we can't say all
sex acts must be reproductive, or the argument breaks down. Mikhail
tries to save this by introducing deontic logic, but this doesn't
work. We can't say that in all possible worlds, some sex acts are
reproductive, because in some possible world a disease may have come
along and made this false, say by entirely eliminating one sex.
Moreover, as we have already mentioned, we the interest is not in
whether a sex act leads to children, but whether it is possible that
it does. Hence the significant thing here is whether, in all possible
worlds, some possible world exists in which some sex act exists which
is possibly reproductive. That is, he *should* say that sex is
necessarily possibly sometimes possibly reproductive, so that sex is
essentially possibly sometimes possibly reproductive.
This now connects with your standard Catholic argument. The idea here
is that God made sex, and that its necessary possible sometimes
possible reproductiveness is the point of sex. Therefore, sex should
always be done such a way that it is possibly possibly reproductive,
or He will be upset.
This doesn't work for Mikhail, and in any case he doesn't want to say
that all sex acts should be possibly possibly reproductive. It is
permissible if, between the partners, there exist some sex act which
is possibly possibly reproductive, even if the particular one being
done isn't it. Now, on the theistic theory, God might well get even
more peeved at this, because here are two people who could be doing
possibly possible reproductive sex, and they aren't. But MZ says that
this is OK, whereas if no sex acts are possibly possibly reproductive
between two partners, the sex acts are morally bad (even if they are
identical.)
If you figure out how this all makes sense, I suggest you get Mikhail
to pay you $1000. You'll have earned it. Good luck, and Merry
Christmas!
Michael Zeleny
gsm...@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>>gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
MZ:
>>Mr Smith, I am 34 years old, stand 6' in my slippers, weigh 188lbs, and
>>bench press 310lbs.
GWS:
>At your age you should have learned to act less like a pimply-faced
>geek.
At my age, Mr Smith, I quickly get bored with rebutting schoolyard
taunts. Take a clue from Oscar, and get some snap in your repartee,
or your audience will surely come to associate all of the uranist kind
with your exemplary limp wits.
GWS:
>Well, all good things come to an end, and I am going to a math
>conference and Christmas vacation. But if anybody else wants to play,
>we now have a new and even more incoherent revised standard version of
>Mikhail's "argument" to play with, due to the efforts of yours truly.
Just so you don't have an excuse to pull out prematurely, I am sending
you a copy of my reply.
GWS:
>It begans thusly:
>
>$We start with the argument that the morally relevant function of sex
>$is reproductive. This means that the *moral* essence of sex is
>$reproductive
,
GWS:
>$ that is, it is necessarily the case that all morally
>$praiseworthy sex is reproductive, i.e. sex is reproductive in all
>$deontically desirable possible worlds. The only morally good
^^^^
praiseworthy
GWS:
>$ sex is
>$that which involves its
moral
GWS:
>$ essence. Therefore, the only morally good sex
>$is that which is reproductive.
GWS:
>Mikhail now wants to say:
>
>$However, it is OK to have sex in such a way that sex is not
>$reproductive, just so long as it still remains the case that sex is
>$possibly reproductive. However, it is bad to have sex which is
>$necessarily not reproductive, i.e. not reproductive in any possible
>$world, because the desirable sex is reproductive in all possible
>$worlds, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
No. I corrected you to read: "because sex is reproductive in all
desirable possible worlds"; consequently we have that sex is morally
praiseworthy if, and only if, the actual world is among the desirable
worlds. Try thinking whilst you write, and you will surely get it.
GWS:
>$ and also the only good sex is that which is reproductive in
>$the actual world.
>
>The above appalling balderdash is what Mikhail has annotated and
>approved. About it he now says:
MZ:
>>I have you exactly where I wanted you, Mr Smith. It is painfully
>>obvious that your knowledge of modal logic is far inferior to my grasp
>>of category theory.
GWS:
>Uh huh. We take note of the fact that so far, MZ hasn't demonstrated
>this superior knowledge in any way. Certainly claiming the above as
>his "argument" doesn't. Hoo boy.
Based on your performance in this debate, I suspect that you couldn't
take note of your own arse without a flashlight, Mr Smith. My logical
superiority over your addle-brained self has been amply demonstrated by
my ability to untangle your mess of quantifiers. If you wish to make a
better impression of yourself, get some remedial instruction. It is
never too late to learn, even for a tendentious, overeducated shithead.
GWS:
GWS:
>About the process which lead to the creation of the revised standard
>version of the Mikhail Argument, MZ says the following:
MZ:
>>I would call this "negative dialectics", the art of elenctically
>>eliciting the truth from an obstreperous, obstinate nitwit, -- but,
>>alas, the term is already taken.
GWS:
>Finally MZ realizes he is a niwit! Now to get him to realize that
>what I have elenctically elicited is raving nonsense...
You would do a lot better in this exchange, once you learn to go beyond
the Pee-Wee Herman school of repartee ("I am rubber and you are glue,
etc."); do try to come up with an original putdown now amd then, if only
to demonstrate the superior wit inculcated within you by your thorough
rearing.
MZ:
>>This is fun! Are you as clueless when you argue about mathematics?
>>Oh yes, you are, -- there is this tiny matter of your idiotic claim
>>of the ontological priority of the cardinal numbers, in a structure
>>built on the backbone of the ordinals. Sayonara, nitwit!
GWS:
>Look, Pinhead, I did not say cardinal numbers were "ontologically
>prior", I said they were conceptually simpler. And set theory is not
>"built on the backbone" of ordinal numbers, or these would not be
>defined as sets.
I have come to a conclusion that the best way to make you reveal your
appalling ignorance is to get you talking about logic. Kindly take
note, in your capacity of a *professional* mathematician, that in an
ontologically foundational discipline like set theory, ontological
priority is precisely a necessary and sufficient condition for
conceptual simplicity. Concerning the question of proper definitions,
axiomatic set theory regards a cardinal as an ordinal which is not
equinumerous to (or, if you prefer, injectible into) any smaller
ordinal. (See Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel, and Levy, _Foundations of Set
Theory_.) As for ordinals being defined as (\epsilon well-ordered,
transitive) sets, that does not prevent the ZF set theorists from
using the class of all ordinals in the meta-theory, to define the
class of all sets V. Address your complaints to real mathematicians,
old thing.
GWS:
>What a maroon!
No comment.
GWS:
>Well, and what of the famous argument? Since I am going away, I won't
>poke any holes in it. I think these are obvious enough now to
>everyone, and in fact I've succeeded in doing what I wanted to do,
>which was to clarify MZ's "argument" enough so that its problems are
>transparent. In this I have succeeded so well that in fact we can now
>see it has become raving lunacy.
To paraphrase John McCarthy, bluster will get Smith nowhere.
GWS:
> However, if anyone wants to
>continue, there are a few issues I should bring up for Mikhail's
>benefit.
Why, thank you, o generous and munificent benefactor of my heart.
GWS:
>Things are, shall we say, a little confused. Is morally desirable sex
>that which is reproductive in this world, or that which is
>reproductive in all morally desirable possible worlds? MZ says both.
Nope, I do not. Morally desirable sex is that which is reproductive in
the actual world, or, equivalently, sex is reproductive in all morally
desirable possible worlds.
GWS:
>What does reproductive and essentially reproductive mean?
The same thing: an act leading to reproduction in virtue of its
essential nature, rather than through a contingent causal circumstance.
GWS:
> Is it
>permissible to have sex when reproduction isn't possible, as he says,
>and does that still mean that it is possible in some possible world?
It is permissible to have sex when reproduction is not possible in
virtue of some circumstance unrelated to the essential nature of the
partners. The salient notion of possibility, on which see Forbes,
regards man as necessarily correlated with his originating zygote, and
so necessarily of a given gender. Consequently, if reproduction is
excluded in virtue of contraception, menopause, or non-genetic
infertility, it is excluded contingently; whereas if reproduction is
excluded in virtue of *genetic* infertility, such as is caused by
selecting a partner with an incompatible genotype, then for that union,
it is excluded necessarily.
GWS:
>It looks like this is one of those cases where we need to distinguish
>what is possible from what is possibly possible, and so say that in
>some possible world the sex possibly is reproductive.
There is no need to iterate modal operators, provided that an
appropriate notion of modality is selected.
GWS:
>We are in fact getting into a problem because Mikhail has screwed up
>by saying sex is essentially reproductive. In fact, we can't say all
>sex acts must be reproductive, or the argument breaks down. Mikhail
>tries to save this by introducing deontic logic, but this doesn't
>work. We can't say that in all possible worlds, some sex acts are
>reproductive, because in some possible world a disease may have come
>along and made this false, say by entirely eliminating one sex.
Mr Smith, the notion of modality with which we are operating, is not the
realist one of David Lewis (for its assumption is simply unnecessary),
but the stipulative one of Kripke and Co.; I advise you to consult the
texts I cited, before you embark on further irrelevant speculations
regarding what may be stipulated as possible.
GWS:
>Moreover, as we have already mentioned, we the interest is not in
>whether a sex act leads to children, but whether it is possible that
>it does. Hence the significant thing here is whether, in all possible
>worlds, some possible world exists in which some sex act exists which
>is possibly reproductive. That is, he *should* say that sex is
>necessarily possibly sometimes possibly reproductive, so that sex is
>essentially possibly sometimes possibly reproductive.
Nonsense. With my corrections, the significant things were said by you
above. The argument is simple, and further speculation is groundless.
GWS:
>This now connects with your standard Catholic argument. The idea here
>is that God made sex, and that its necessary possible sometimes
>possible reproductiveness is the point of sex. Therefore, sex should
>always be done such a way that it is possibly possibly reproductive,
>or He will be upset.
My argument is made independently of any theistic premisses.
GWS:
>This doesn't work for Mikhail, and in any case he doesn't want to say
>that all sex acts should be possibly possibly reproductive. It is
>permissible if, between the partners, there exist some sex act which
>is possibly possibly reproductive, even if the particular one being
>done isn't it. Now, on the theistic theory, God might well get even
>more peeved at this, because here are two people who could be doing
>possibly possible reproductive sex, and they aren't. But MZ says that
>this is OK, whereas if no sex acts are possibly possibly reproductive
>between two partners, the sex acts are morally bad (even if they are
>identical.)
See above. Nota bene: having failed to convict me of inconsistency, you
might want to challenge my assumptions. Feel free to inquire.
GWS:
>If you figure out how this all makes sense, I suggest you get Mikhail
>to pay you $1000. You'll have earned it. Good luck, and Merry
>Christmas!
Enjoy your vacation.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
breeders? That's not reproductive in any possible world, but I can't imagine
him objecting to some woman offering him a blow job...although, then again,
maybe he doesn't have that problem. After all, Kant was a virgin his entire
life - I suspect that this is probably the only way in which Mikhail could
compare any aspect of himself to a guy like Kant at all.
But then again, maybe I'm just being rude.
-jesse "I'm not defined by my dick" fuchs
Erin Zhu
In article <merlyn.724144486@digibd> mer...@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn
LeRoy) writes:
>I have concluded that much from this thread...
By the way, leave the speculations alone, or rather, quit peeking at
the bedsheets, it ain't gentlemanly.
>Merlyn LeRoy
--Erin
p.s. Thank god (net.god? nah...) or whoever is responsible that this
thread is being reduced to bite-sized pieces.
Erin Zhu
(JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> What does my pal Mikhail
Using the term 'pal' rather loosely, aren't we.
>have to say about oral sex between us
>breeders?
Is that to be considered a proposition? I'm sure he'd be flattered.
>That's not reproductive in any possible world, but I can't imagine
>him objecting to some woman offering him a blow job...
Then one is afraid that your imagination is sadly lacking. Although
such objections would be based on aesthetic reasons rather than moral
ones, I'd imagine.
>although, then again,
>maybe he doesn't have that problem. After all, Kant was a virgin his entire
>life - I suspect that this is probably the only way in which Mikhail could
>compare any aspect of himself to a guy like Kant at all.
Relax, Jesse, I promise I won't leak any information which might make
you (gasp!) reconsider your set-in-stone image of your dear pal.
After all, what could one possibly take for granted in this world if
_that_ was to change?
> But then again, maybe I'm just being rude.
You? The soul of sincere good manners, charm, and wit? NO!?!
> -jesse "I'm not defined by my dick" fuchs
Impressive, indeed. Manly defiance with a splash of boyish charm, a
pinch of quirky vulgarity, a smidgen of ironic distance...
--Erin
Tim Pierce
>In article <Bz5yr...@unix.amherst.edu> jmf...@unix.amherst.edu
>(JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
>>That's not reproductive in any possible world, but I can't imagine
>>him objecting to some woman offering him a blow job...
>
>Then one is afraid that your imagination is sadly lacking.
In that fellatio is not conceivably reproductive, or in that Mickey
wouldn't reject such an offer? You've just told us either something
extremely profound about the human reproductive system, or something
extremely revealing about your nighttime escapades with Mike.
I'm sorry to hear about it, Erin. Perhaps if you could do something
about Mikey's position on sodomy, our tongues would finally get a rest
and yours would finally get a workout.
Michael Zeleny
>In article <Bz5yr...@unix.amherst.edu>
>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
JMF:
>> What does my pal Mikhail
YEZ:
>Using the term 'pal' rather loosely, aren't we.
Come now, Skippy is obviously alluding to the French meaning of the
word, as he indulges in predictably masochistic, receptive fantasies.
As for the looseness of fit, I don't dare speculate. Yet another
victim of Vlad the Impaler?
JMF:
>> have to say about oral sex between us
>>breeders?
YEZ:
>Is that to be considered a proposition? I'm sure he'd be flattered.
Yes, it isn't every day that someone offers to undergo a sex change
operation, for the sole purpose of becoming eligible to suck me off.
Still, I must regretfully decline: aside from the question of Skippy's
impaired genotype, I just can't take the risk of coming so close to
absolute vacuum.
JMF:
>>That's not reproductive in any possible world, but I can't imagine
>>him objecting to some woman offering him a blow job...
YEZ:
>Then one is afraid that your imagination is sadly lacking. Although
>such objections would be based on aesthetic reasons rather than moral
>ones, I'd imagine.
In the final analysis, it will amount to the same thing. Someone so
blitheringly stupid, can't help being ugly as well.
JMF:
>> although, then again,
>>maybe he doesn't have that problem. After all, Kant was a virgin his entire
>>life - I suspect that this is probably the only way in which Mikhail could
>>compare any aspect of himself to a guy like Kant at all.
YEZ:
>Relax, Jesse, I promise I won't leak any information which might make
>you (gasp!) reconsider your set-in-stone image of your dear pal.
>After all, what could one possibly take for granted in this world if
>_that_ was to change?
Well, if you don't tell him, I will. You see, Skippy, Kant didn't
remain a virgin. His students managed to persuade him that a moral
philosopher of his stature had to have experienced the sensations of
carnal union, if only once. So they conducted him to a brothel, and
the old Manny did the deed. Whereupon his students inquired about his
impressions, provoking Kant to his famous description of intercourse:
"A succession of senseless, haphazard motions."
JMF:
>> But then again, maybe I'm just being rude.
YEZ:
>You? The soul of sincere good manners, charm, and wit? NO!?!
JMF:
>> -jesse "I'm not defined by my dick" fuchs
YEZ:
>Impressive, indeed. Manly defiance with a splash of boyish charm, a
>pinch of quirky vulgarity, a smidgen of ironic distance...
I dissent: clearly Skippy wishes to excuse the negligibility of the
definiendum by the lack of the definiens.
> --Erin
generic fellow
GWS:
>$We start with the argument that the morally relevant function of sex
>$is reproductive. This means that the *moral* essence of sex is
>$reproductive that is, it is necessarily the case that all morally
>$praiseworthy sex is reproductive, i.e. sex is reproductive in all
>$deontically desirable possible worlds. The only morally good sex is
^^^^
[MZ: praiseworthy]
you wish to revise the terms of the debate, then. which sort of
cheap thrill is this? would you now care to assert that 'praiseworthy'
was what you intended all along?
MZ:
>It is permissible to have sex when reproduction is not possible in
>virtue of some circumstance unrelated to the essential nature of the
>partners. The salient notion of possibility, on which see Forbes,
^^^^^^^
arbitrary
>regards man as necessarily correlated with his originating zygote, and
>so necessarily of a given gender. Consequently, if reproduction is
>excluded in virtue of contraception, menopause, or non-genetic
>infertility, it is excluded contingently; whereas if reproduction is
>excluded in virtue of *genetic* infertility, such as is caused by
>selecting a partner with an incompatible genotype, then for that union,
>it is excluded necessarily.
GWS:
>>It looks like this is one of those cases where we need to distinguish
>>what is possible from what is possibly possible, and so say that in
>>some possible world the sex possibly is reproductive.
MZ:
>There is no need to iterate modal operators, provided that an
>appropriate notion of modality is selected.
^^^^^^^^^^^
arbitrary
MZ:
>Mr Smith, the notion of modality with which we are operating, is not the
>realist one of David Lewis (for its assumption is simply unnecessary),
^^^^^^^^^^^
uncomfortable
>but the stipulative one of Kripke and Co.; I advise you to consult the
>texts I cited, before you embark on further irrelevant speculations
>regarding what may be stipulated as possible.
GWS:
>>This now connects with your standard Catholic argument. The idea here
>>is that God made sex, and that its necessary possible sometimes
>>possible reproductiveness is the point of sex. Therefore, sex should
>>always be done such a way that it is possibly possibly reproductive,
>>or He will be upset.
MZ:
>My argument is made independently of any theistic premisses.
'made independently', granted; 'exists independently', not so. kindly
admit to apprehending the distinction. i do hate to repeat myself.
MZ:
>Nota bene: having failed to convict me of inconsistency, you
>might want to challenge my assumptions. Feel free to inquire.
oy. tried that briefly, received perfunctory citation and complaint of
boredom.
-dave
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
> (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> > > What does my pal Mikhail
>
> Using the term 'pal' rather loosely, aren't we.
Mickey does to be a pal. Whether or not that joy is of the "laugh at" rather
than the "laugh with" variety is not particularly important. He's still loads
o' fun either way.
>
> >have to say about oral sex between us
> >breeders?
>
> Is that to be considered a proposition? I'm sure he'd be flattered.
sex than any other male. Not that I think oral sex between males (or any other
type of sex) is wrong or yucky - it's just not my shtick.
>
> >That's not reproductive in any possible world, but I can't imagine
> >him objecting to some woman offering him a blow job...
>
> Then one is afraid that your imagination is sadly lacking. Although
> such objections would be based on aesthetic reasons rather than moral
> ones, I'd imagine.
give Mickey the benefit of the doubt and assume he's discriminating in his
sexual practices.
>
> >although, then again,
> >maybe he doesn't have that problem. After all, Kant was a virgin his entire> >life - I suspect that this is probably the only way in which Mikhail could
> >compare any aspect of himself to a guy like Kant at all.
>
> Relax, Jesse, I promise I won't leak any information which might make
> you (gasp!) reconsider your set-in-stone image of your dear pal.
> After all, what could one possibly take for granted in this world if
> _that_ was to change?
at all, but an avatar of some deity that we could never hope to comprehend. A
really lame deity, but nonetheless...Without him, how could I get my RDA of
condescending chuckles? Things like that just aren't included in your breakfast
cereal.
>
> > But then again, maybe I'm just being rude.
>
> You? The soul of sincere good manners, charm, and wit? NO!?!
>
> > -jesse "I'm not defined by my dick" fuchs
>
> Impressive, indeed. Manly defiance with a splash of boyish charm, a
> pinch of quirky vulgarity, a smidgen of ironic distance...
model of a volcano!
>
> --Erin
>
>
-jesse fuchs
"There are five billion people in this world.
Wonder how many of them we can screw over?
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
> In article <1992Dec14....@athena.mit.edu>
> z...@athena.mit.edu (Erin Zhu) writes:
>
> >In article <Bz5yr...@unix.amherst.edu>
> >jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
> JMF:
> >> What does my pal Mikhail
>
> YEZ:
> >Using the term 'pal' rather loosely, aren't we.
>
> Come now, Skippy is obviously alluding to the French meaning of the
> word, as he indulges in predictably masochistic, receptive fantasies.
> As for the looseness of fit, I don't dare speculate. Yet another
> victim of Vlad the Impaler?
reasons that I call Mickey my pal, see my response to Erin. Vlad the Impaler?
But I have to admit, I do like the nickname Skippy.
>
> JMF:
> >> have to say about oral sex between us
> >>breeders?
>
> YEZ:
> >Is that to be considered a proposition? I'm sure he'd be flattered.
>
> Yes, it isn't every day that someone offers to undergo a sex change
> operation, for the sole purpose of becoming eligible to suck me off.
> Still, I must regretfully decline: aside from the question of Skippy's
> impaired genotype, I just can't take the risk of coming so close to
> absolute vacuum.
group, not me and Mickey personally, although I'm sure it would be...um...uh...
well, it would be an event.
>
> JMF:
> >>That's not reproductive in any possible world, but I can't imagine
> >>him objecting to some woman offering him a blow job...
>
> YEZ:
> >Then one is afraid that your imagination is sadly lacking. Although
> >such objections would be based on aesthetic reasons rather than moral
> >ones, I'd imagine.
>
> In the final analysis, it will amount to the same thing. Someone so
> blitheringly stupid, can't help being ugly as well.
as myself are usual sort of cute. Seems to be my experience, unfortunately.
However, Mickey is right - I would not make a cute woman. But then again, as
I explained previously, that's not my point.
>
> JMF:
> >> although, then again,
> >>maybe he doesn't have that problem. After all, Kant was a virgin his entire
> >>life - I suspect that this is probably the only way in which Mikhail could
> >>compare any aspect of himself to a guy like Kant at all.
>
> YEZ:
> >Relax, Jesse, I promise I won't leak any information which might make
> >you (gasp!) reconsider your set-in-stone image of your dear pal.
> >After all, what could one possibly take for granted in this world if
> >_that_ was to change?
>
> Well, if you don't tell him, I will. You see, Skippy, Kant didn't
> remain a virgin. His students managed to persuade him that a moral
> philosopher of his stature had to have experienced the sensations of
> carnal union, if only once. So they conducted him to a brothel, and
> the old Manny did the deed. Whereupon his students inquired about his
> impressions, provoking Kant to his famous description of intercourse:
>
> "A succession of senseless, haphazard motions."
which I assure you still holds a legendary stature. While I always thought
that story was just one of those mythical anecdotes, I'll take your word that
it's true. My mistake.
>
> JMF:
> >> But then again, maybe I'm just being rude.
>
> YEZ:
> >You? The soul of sincere good manners, charm, and wit? NO!?!
>
> JMF:
> >> -jesse "I'm not defined by my dick" fuchs
>
> YEZ:
> >Impressive, indeed. Manly defiance with a splash of boyish charm, a
> >pinch of quirky vulgarity, a smidgen of ironic distance...
>
> I dissent: clearly Skippy wishes to excuse the negligibility of the
> definiendum by the lack of the definiens.
Masters of The Universe action figures, let me be telling you. Personally, I
don't like to define myself by my sexual proclvities. Okay, I'm attracted to
woman, and I'm not attracted to men, but who the heck cares?
>
> > --Erin
> >
> >
>
> cordially,
> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
-jesse "A winner in the game of Life" fuch
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
by the aesthetics of abusing Mickey, I seemed to have forgotten my original
point. Of course, the blame probably shouldn't rest entirely on my shoulders,
since Mickey did absolutely nothing to answer it.
But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
operators...my god, it's quite a scene.
-Skippy
Michael Zeleny
The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
time before the climax. The long form will be found in my latest
reply to Mike Morris. I await my promised reward.
> -Skippy
rodney james freier
Sorry. No G.I. Joes. That potentially productive venue can actually be a
potentially destructive venue. If the male/female couple has already had
2 children, having another would be a deadly contribution to the world's
population. Or don't you understand the exponential function yet?
Rod
Evelyn C. Leeper
> In article <BzCIM...@unix.amherst.edu>
> jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
> > But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
> >male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
> >between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
> >clearly stated reason
>
> switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
> time before the climax. The long form will be found in my latest
> reply to Mike Morris. I await my promised reward.
Oh, Lord, if this is what passes for "logical and clearly stated" at
Harvard, I weep for the state of higher education in this country.
Even if one grants the premise that a potentially productive union is
some alternate world is necessary for certain configurations to be
approved--and a more ludicrous premise I haven't seen in a long
time--I have no problem seeing that two women or two men could have a
potentially productive union in *some* world. (Maybe it's my science
fiction background.) Therefore, by your "reasoning," their union
should be okay. If you can't envision such a world, that, my friend,
is *your* problem, not mine.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe." --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do." --Niels Bohr
Paul Callahan
>In article <1992Dec16.1...@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>> In article <BzCIM...@unix.amherst.edu>
>> jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>>
>> > But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
>> >male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
>> >between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
>> >clearly stated reason
>>
>> The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>> switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>> time before the climax. The long form will be found in my latest
>> reply to Mike Morris. I await my promised reward.
>Oh, Lord, if this is what passes for "logical and clearly stated" at
>Harvard, I weep for the state of higher education in this country.
Harvard keeps Zeleny around so English students can better understand Eliot's
"Prufrock." Who else could provide such a concrete image for the phrase
"a tedious argument, of insidious intent"?
--
Paul Callahan
call...@cs.jhu.edu
Tim Fogarty
So therefore, a three-way relationship of two men and a woman would be
acceptable. The two men could have sex while the woman watches TV in the
next room, because at any time before the climax, they could switch to a
potentially productive venue within their union. Sounds good to me.
--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOG...@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Tim Pierce
In article <1992Dec16.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes on why oral sex
between a man and a woman is not as morally bereft as same-gender sex:
>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>time before the climax.
So, in fact, the position to which they switch is in fact morally good
under your paradigm. And if the partners do not switch before climax?
Do you continue to defend heterosexual sodomy on the basis that they
*could* have switched to a reproductive position, or do you apply your
venom equally to those who spit and those who swallow? Or those who
masturbate, for that matter?
I eagerly await Mickey's version of "I won't come in your mouth."
Michael Zeleny
e...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <BzCIM...@unix.amherst.edu>
>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
JMF:
>>> But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
>>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
>>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
>>>clearly stated reason
MZ:
>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>>time before the climax. The long form will be found in my latest
>>reply to Mike Morris. I await my promised reward.
ECL:
>Oh, Lord, if this is what passes for "logical and clearly stated" at
>Harvard, I weep for the state of higher education in this country.
Why stop at weeping? Immediate suicide would constitute the only
adequate expression for your grief.
ECL:
>Even if one grants the premise that a potentially productive union is
>some alternate world is necessary for certain configurations to be
>approved--and a more ludicrous premise
The difference between a premiss and a derived principle is normally
covered in an introductory logic course.
ECL:
> I haven't seen in a long
>time--I have no problem seeing that two women or two men could have a
>potentially productive union in *some* world. (Maybe it's my science
>fiction background.) Therefore, by your "reasoning," their union
>should be okay. If you can't envision such a world, that, my friend,
>is *your* problem, not mine.
Ditto for the difference between the possible and the conceivable.
>Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
>--
>"God does not play dice with the universe." --Albert Einstein
>"Albert, stop telling God what to do." --Niels Bohr
cordially,
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
subjective) that would count as foreplay, instead of Oral Sex. Maybe you don't
agree with this definition, and I can see why not, but when I ask for a
reason that oral sex between a male and female is okay, I mean up until climax.
By the way, what if they can't switch to the ol' bump and grind? For
instance, I have quite a few friends here at college who are going out with
female virgins. The women do not wish to lose their virginity at this point,
but are willing to give oral sex. By your definition, this would be bad.
Sorry, Mickey, no ginsu knives...although there is the consolation prize of
a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni sitting here with your name on it.
> cordially,
> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
Lard & Fishes,
Skipp
Michael Zeleny
fog...@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <BzCIM...@unix.amherst.edu>
>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
JMF:
>>> But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
>>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
>>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
>>>clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
>>>$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
>>>bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
>>>on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
>>>operators...my god, it's quite a scene.
MZ:
>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>>time before the climax. The long form will be found in my latest
>>reply to Mike Morris. I await my promised reward.
TF:
>So therefore, a three-way relationship of two men and a woman would be
>acceptable. The two men could have sex while the woman watches TV in the
>next room, because at any time before the climax, they could switch to a
>potentially productive venue within their union. Sounds good to me.
I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
allow for a change of partners *within* the same act. See my
discussion with Mike Morris for more details.
>--
>Tim Fogarty
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
>FOG...@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
cordially,
Michael Zeleny
fre...@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <BzCIM...@unix.amherst.edu>
>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
JMF:
>>> Oh, you know, it's pretty darn stupid of me, but, as I was distracted
>>>by the aesthetics of abusing Mickey, I seemed to have forgotten my original
>>>point. Of course, the blame probably shouldn't rest entirely on my shoulders,
>>>since Mickey did absolutely nothing to answer it.
>>> But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
>>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
>>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
>>>clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
>>>$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
>>>bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
>>>on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
>>>operators...my god, it's quite a scene.
MZ:
>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>>time before the climax. The long form will be found in my latest
>>reply to Mike Morris. I await my promised reward.
RJF:
>Sorry. No G.I. Joes. That potentially productive venue can actually be a
>potentially destructive venue. If the male/female couple has already had
>2 children, having another would be a deadly contribution to the world's
>population. Or don't you understand the exponential function yet?
Sorry myself. Consequentialism has been soundly trashed since the
Malthusian heyday. Look it up.
>>> -Skippy
>Rod
Michael Zeleny
twpi...@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
TP:
>(Rec.arts.books has been removed from followups.)
I think not.
>In article <1992Dec16.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes on why oral sex
>between a man and a woman is not as morally bereft as same-gender sex:
MZ:
>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>>time before the climax.
TP:
>So, in fact, the position to which they switch is in fact morally good
>under your paradigm. And if the partners do not switch before climax?
>Do you continue to defend heterosexual sodomy on the basis that they
>*could* have switched to a reproductive position, or do you apply your
>venom equally to those who spit and those who swallow? Or those who
>masturbate, for that matter?
This has been covered in my discussion with Mike Morris.
TP:
>I eagerly await Mickey's version of "I won't come in your mouth."
To your certain consternation, I won't even enter yours, old thing.
>--
>____ Tim Pierce /
>\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
cordially,
Michael Zeleny
>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
JMF:
>>> Oh, you know, it's pretty darn stupid of me, but, as I was distracted
>>>by the aesthetics of abusing Mickey, I seemed to have forgotten my original
>>>point. Of course, the blame probably shouldn't rest entirely on my shoulders,
>>>since Mickey did absolutely nothing to answer it.
>>> But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
>>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
>>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
>>>clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
>>>$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
>>>bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
>>>on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
>>>operators...my god, it's quite a scene.
MZ:
>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>>time before the climax. The long form will be found in my latest
>>reply to Mike Morris. I await my promised reward.
JMF:
> Sorry, Mickey, but, according to my definition (which is admittedly
>subjective) that would count as foreplay, instead of Oral Sex. Maybe you don't
>agree with this definition, and I can see why not, but when I ask for a
>reason that oral sex between a male and female is okay, I mean up until climax.
Possibility is more inclusive than its actualization.
JMF:
> By the way, what if they can't switch to the ol' bump and grind? For
>instance, I have quite a few friends here at college who are going out with
>female virgins. The women do not wish to lose their virginity at this point,
>but are willing to give oral sex. By your definition, this would be bad.
>Sorry, Mickey, no ginsu knives...although there is the consolation prize of
>a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni sitting here with your name on it.
Skippy, if you need me to tell you what's wrong with this picture, you
have no chance of getting it straight anyway.
>>cordially,
>>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
>>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
JMF:
> Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
>that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
No deadbeat is a relative of mine.
> Lard & Fishes,
> Skipp
Steve Dyer
>I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
>allow for a change of partners *within* the same act. See my
>discussion with Mike Morris for more details.
Sp[l]itting pubic hairs again, Misha?
I suspect you haven't been in many N-way orgies, where N > 1.
The idea that there's "an act" which can be isolated and subjected
to this dreary philosophical harangue is wonderfully quaint and dusty,
reminiscent of old missionaries and old missionary positions, and more
than a bit unreal. But we knew that already.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Michael Zeleny
dy...@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
>>allow for a change of partners *within* the same act. See my
>>discussion with Mike Morris for more details.
SD:
>Sp[l]itting pubic hairs again, Misha?
Your witty repartee forcees me to revise my estimate of your professional
prospects. Perhaps in a mere twenty years, you'll be ready for MC-ing in
a poof retirement farm. Once again, the making of the nauseatingly
predictable cruel jest concerning the statistical prospects and probable
circumstances of such retirement, is left to the esteemed Clayton Cramer.
SD:
>I suspect you haven't been in many N-way orgies, where N > 1.
I fail to see the relevance of my sexual _curriculum vitae_ to the matter
at hand, and I do mean *your* hand. But since you insist, I'll own up to
having been found attractive by more than one woman at a time.
SD:
>The idea that there's "an act" which can be isolated and subjected
>to this dreary philosophical harangue is wonderfully quaint and dusty,
>reminiscent of old missionaries and old missionary positions, and more
>than a bit unreal. But we knew that already.
Within any freely chosen human activity, there is an act subject to being
isolated and analyzed. It is neither necessary, nor reasonable, to
maintain that each such activity involves no more than one intentional
act. But I shall not continue this disquisition, for fear of provoking
your Complacent Superficiality into troublesome reflection. Interested
parties will find further information on this subject in _The Will_, by
Brian O'Shaughnessy.
>--
>Steve Dyer
>dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
cordially,
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
arguing it well. However, in the real world, why is possibility more
inclusive? In both cases, there just ain't going to be any "sex," so why
should it matter to anyone not merely treading in their own intellectual
waters?
>
> JMF:
> > By the way, what if they can't switch to the ol' bump and grind? For
> >instance, I have quite a few friends here at college who are going out with
> >female virgins. The women do not wish to lose their virginity at this point,
> >but are willing to give oral sex. By your definition, this would be bad.
> >Sorry, Mickey, no ginsu knives...although there is the consolation prize of
> >a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni sitting here with your name on it.
>
> Skippy, if you need me to tell you what's wrong with this picture, you
> have no chance of getting it straight anyway.
I'm pretty sure that what you mean by "what's wrong with this picture"
is not the fact that these women won't have sex. But what is your definition
of the realm of possibility? The chances of a barren woman suddenly becoming
fertile during sex is about equal to the odds of a gay man suddenly growing
a womb and being able to bear children with semen entering through his mouth.
True, in some possible world, this woman could be feritle - but in some
possible world, we could also impregnate aardvarks. Does this make
bestiality okay with you?
>
> >>cordially,
> >>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> >>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
>
> JMF:
> > Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
> >that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
>
> No deadbeat is a relative of mine.
But in some possible world, I could be. And wouldn't that just be a
thrill for both of us.
>
> > Lard & Fishes,
> > Skipp
>
> cordially,
> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
More fun than lots of things, up to but
not including reruns of "Cheers,"
Skippy
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
> In article <1992Dec17.0...@spdcc.com>
> dy...@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>
> >In article <1992Dec16.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
> >zel...@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
> MZ:
> >>I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
> >>allow for a change of partners *within* the same act. See my
> >>discussion with Mike Morris for more details.
>
> SD:
> >Sp[l]itting pubic hairs again, Misha?
>
> Your witty repartee forcees me to revise my estimate of your professional
> prospects. Perhaps in a mere twenty years, you'll be ready for MC-ing in
> a poof retirement farm. Once again, the making of the nauseatingly
> predictable cruel jest concerning the statistical prospects and probable
> circumstances of such retirement, is left to the esteemed Clayton Cramer.
>
> SD:
> >I suspect you haven't been in many N-way orgies, where N > 1.
>
> I fail to see the relevance of my sexual _curriculum vitae_ to the matter
> at hand, and I do mean *your* hand. But since you insist, I'll own up to
> having been found attractive by more than one woman at a time.
>
> SD:
> >The idea that there's "an act" which can be isolated and subjected
> >to this dreary philosophical harangue is wonderfully quaint and dusty,
> >reminiscent of old missionaries and old missionary positions, and more
> >than a bit unreal. But we knew that already.
>
> Within any freely chosen human activity, there is an act subject to being
> isolated and analyzed. It is neither necessary, nor reasonable, to
> maintain that each such activity involves no more than one intentional
> act. But I shall not continue this disquisition, for fear of provoking
> your Complacent Superficiality into troublesome reflection. Interested
> parties will find further information on this subject in _The Will_, by
> Brian O'Shaughnessy.
witht he idea of separating indivdiual acts, but that would mean we would
have to separate the act of oral sex between men and women from any other
sex they might have. When separated from the rest, this is just as bad as
oral sex between two men.
By the way, if the only legitimate purpose for sex is reproductive, I
have to ask (assuming you do not): Why don't you cut a hole in a sheet, put
your penis through that, and have that be the only contact between you and
your woman, as I hear the Amish do? To quote my Philo prof, "Wild Bill"
Kennick: "Has anyone, in the history of the universe, ever thought of having
sexsolely for reproductive reasons? I have two children, and rest assured, the
thought has never come close to crossing my mind."
>
> >--
> >Steve Dyer
> >dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
>
> cordially,
> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
-Skippy
"You have enough work to keep you off
the street this weekend. I have enough
to do to keep me off the street this
weekend. I don't expect to be meeting
you on the street this weekend."
-William "Wild Bill" Kennick
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
prequisites or course requirements to being on the net. Not all of us have the
time nor inclination to take a logic course - personally, I think it would be
fun and useful, but I simply have too many other things to take. If you can't
explain the difference using precise, clear English, don't even bother to
bring it up.
>
> ECL:
> > I haven't seen in a long
> >time--I have no problem seeing that two women or two men could have a
> >potentially productive union in *some* world. (Maybe it's my science
> >fiction background.) Therefore, by your "reasoning," their union
> >should be okay. If you can't envision such a world, that, my friend,
> >is *your* problem, not mine.
>
> Ditto for the difference between the possible and the conceivable.
again, in a slightly different fashion. A completely, genetically barren
woman (perhaps one with XY chromosomes, for instance, who didn't get enough
testosterone in the womb - it's rare, but it happens) suddenly becoming
fertile is impossible. Certainly conceivable (no pun intended,) but not
possible.
> >Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
> >--
> >"God does not play dice with the universe." --Albert Einstein
> >"Albert, stop telling God what to do." --Niels Bohr
>
> cordially,
> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
>
jesse fu...@unix.amherst.edu
"Donde esta el concerto Menudo?
Michael Zeleny
>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc9.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
MZ:
>>Possibility is more inclusive than its actualization.
JMF:
> This is a very, very weird argument, but I will give you points for
>arguing it well. However, in the real world, why is possibility more
>inclusive? In both cases, there just ain't going to be any "sex," so why
>should it matter to anyone not merely treading in their own intellectual
>waters?
In fact, "the real world" gets very, very weird, if only the actual
events are considered as making the basis for its description. For
instance, lacking access to the facts of the subject matter, there
would be nothing in the actual world to allow you to favor in any way
a consistent truth-teller over a consistent liar. This is not just an
epistemological issue, wherein only the evidence would be lacking, but
a metaphysical one, wherein the lack of evidence would entail the lack
of facts of the matter.
In other words, counterfactual reasoning can tell you more about the
intrinsic nature of things, as opposed to the way they happen to be.
JMF:
>>> By the way, what if they can't switch to the ol' bump and grind? For
>>>instance, I have quite a few friends here at college who are going out with
>>>female virgins. The women do not wish to lose their virginity at this point,
>>>but are willing to give oral sex. By your definition, this would be bad.
>>>Sorry, Mickey, no ginsu knives...although there is the consolation prize of
>>>a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni sitting here with your name on it.
MZ:
>>Skippy, if you need me to tell you what's wrong with this picture, you
>>have no chance of getting it straight anyway.
JMF:
> I'm pretty sure that what you mean by "what's wrong with this picture"
>is not the fact that these women won't have sex. But what is your definition
>of the realm of possibility? The chances of a barren woman suddenly becoming
>fertile during sex is about equal to the odds of a gay man suddenly growing
>a womb and being able to bear children with semen entering through his mouth.
>True, in some possible world, this woman could be feritle - but in some
>possible world, we could also impregnate aardvarks. Does this make
>bestiality okay with you?
That's just the thing, Skippy, -- the chances are *not* the same, in
light of what we know about the nature of sexuality. I will admit
that this modal theory is a weird thing, -- it has taken me several
years to accept it as meaningful, and in my own work, I still like to
investigate even more arcane alternatives. But it does what it is
supposed to do, i.e. illuminate its subject matter.
>>>>cordially,
>>>>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
>>>>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
JMF:
>>> Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
>>>that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
MZ:
>>No deadbeat is a relative of mine.
JMF:
> But in some possible world, I could be. And wouldn't that just be a
>thrill for both of us.
But the genotype is an essential property of our bodies, Skippy.
Either we are relatives, or it is impossible for us to be related by
blood. Since in the actual world, as a matter of empirical fact, no
deadbeat is a relative of mine, and since you are a _bona fide_
deadbeat, it is impossible for us to be related. Q.E.D.
>>> Lard & Fishes,
>>> Skipp
>>cordially,
>>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
>>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> More fun than lots of things, up to but
> not including reruns of "Cheers,"
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
Michael Zeleny
>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>In article <1992Dec17.0...@spdcc.com>
>>dy...@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec16.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zel...@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>>>I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
>>>>allow for a change of partners *within* the same act. See my
>>>>discussion with Mike Morris for more details.
>[some phatic speech omitted]
SD:
>>>I suspect you haven't been in many N-way orgies, where N >1.
MZ:
>>I fail to see the relevance of my sexual _curriculum vitae_ to the matter
>>at hand, and I do mean *your* hand. But since you insist, I'll own up to
>>having been found attractive by more than one woman at a time.
JMF:
> Go Mickey.
SD:
>>>The idea that there's "an act" which can be isolated and subjected
>>>to this dreary philosophical harangue is wonderfully quaint and dusty,
>>>reminiscent of old missionaries and old missionary positions, and more
>>>than a bit unreal. But we knew that already.
MZ:
>>Within any freely chosen human activity, there is an act subject to being
>>isolated and analyzed. It is neither necessary, nor reasonable, to
>>maintain that each such activity involves no more than one intentional
>>act. But I shall not continue this disquisition, for fear of provoking
>>your Complacent Superficiality into troublesome reflection. Interested
>>parties will find further information on this subject in _The Will_, by
>>Brian O'Shaughnessy.
JMF:
> Yes, but your analysis of the situation is silly. I have no argument
>witht he idea of separating indivdiual acts, but that would mean we would
>have to separate the act of oral sex between men and women from any other
>sex they might have. When separated from the rest, this is just as bad as
>oral sex between two men.
Nothing can be separated from the possibilities which inhere in it.
JMF:
> By the way, if the only legitimate purpose for sex is reproductive, I
>have to ask (assuming you do not): Why don't you cut a hole in a sheet, put
>your penis through that, and have that be the only contact between you and
>your woman, as I hear the Amish do? To quote my Philo prof, "Wild Bill"
>Kennick: "Has anyone, in the history of the universe, ever thought of having
>sexsolely for reproductive reasons? I have two children, and rest assured, the
>thought has never come close to crossing my mind."
Skippy, the fact that the only *moral* purpose of sex is reproduction,
does not in any way forbid, prevent, or enjoin you from using it to
attain other ends, -- as long as you do not deliberately forswear,
abjure, and abandon the said purpose.
> -Skippy
> "You have enough work to keep you off
> the street this weekend. I have enough
> to do to keep me off the street this
> weekend. I don't expect to be meeting
> you on the street this weekend."
>
> -William "Wild Bill" Kennick
Why do people who advertise
themselves as "wild", always
sound so bloody boring?
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Michael Zeleny
>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>In article <1992Dec16.2...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
>>e...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec16.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>In article <BzCIM...@unix.amherst.edu>
>>>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
JMF:
>>>>> But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
>>>>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
>>>>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
>>>>>clearly stated reason
MZ:
>>>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>>>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>>>>time before the climax. The long form will be found in my latest
>>>>reply to Mike Morris. I await my promised reward.
[sententious malediction omitted]
ECL:
>>>Even if one grants the premise that a potentially productive union is
>>>some alternate world is necessary for certain configurations to be
>>>approved--and a more ludicrous premise
MZ:
>>The difference between a premiss and a derived principle is normally
>>covered in an introductory logic course.
JMF:
> I hate to be the one to break it to you, Mickey, but there are no
>prequisites or course requirements to being on the net. Not all of us have the
>time nor inclination to take a logic course - personally, I think it would be
>fun and useful, but I simply have too many other things to take. If you can't
>explain the difference using precise, clear English, don't even bother to
>bring it up.
Skippy, there is no excuse for ignorance of logic, grammar, or
rhetoric, particularly when one presumes to flame others for their
alleged lack. Besides, if you are not skilled in the trivium, you
will not recognize precise, clear English, even when you see it.
ECL:
>>> I haven't seen in a long
>>>time--I have no problem seeing that two women or two men could have a
>>>potentially productive union in *some* world. (Maybe it's my science
>>>fiction background.) Therefore, by your "reasoning," their union
>>>should be okay. If you can't envision such a world, that, my friend,
>>>is *your* problem, not mine.
MZ:
>>Ditto for the difference between the possible and the conceivable.
JMF:
> I make this point in another post, but what the heck, I'll make it
>again, in a slightly different fashion. A completely, genetically barren
>woman (perhaps one with XY chromosomes, for instance, who didn't get enough
>testosterone in the womb - it's rare, but it happens) suddenly becoming
>fertile is impossible. Certainly conceivable (no pun intended,) but not
>possible.
From the standpoint concerned with the essential nature (admittedly
neither legal, nor social), as represented by the genotype, your
protagonist would be male, appearances and phenotype notwithstanding.
> perkily,
> jesse fu...@unix.amherst.edu
> "Donde esta el concerto Menudo?
Evelyn C. Leeper
> In article <1992Dec16.2...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
> e...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>
> ECL:
> >Even if one grants the premise that a potentially productive union is
> >some alternate world is necessary for certain configurations to be
> >approved--and a more ludicrous premise
>
> The difference between a premiss and a derived principle is normally
> covered in an introductory logic course.
As far as I could tell from the articles on my system, your syllogism
went as follows:
Given, 1) Only potentially productive unions are moral.
And given, 2) The union of two males is not potentially productive.
Therefore, 3) The union of two males is not moral.
If #1 was somehow the conclusion (derived principle?) of some other chain
of reasoning, that chain is no longer on my system.
Matt Austern
> As far as I could tell from the articles on my system, your syllogism
> went as follows:
> Given, 1) Only potentially productive unions are moral.
> And given, 2) The union of two males is not potentially productive.
> Therefore, 3) The union of two males is not moral.
> If #1 was somehow the conclusion (derived principle?) of some other chain
> of reasoning, that chain is no longer on my system.
I think most people haven't focused on this rather glaring omission,
since Zeleny has yet to provide a coherent definition of what
"potentially productive" even means. Once he shows that this concept
makes sense, then he can begin to argue why it is morally significant.
Me, I think the whole discussion is silly anyway. Most of the things
that I do, in bed and otherwise, have no connection with reproduction
at all; should I give up eating cheesecake, reading netnews, and
calculating Feynman integrals just because none of those things can
lead to making more babies?
(Well, maybe I should give up reading netnews, but that's not the
reason...)
--
Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
aus...@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
my point of "Yes, but who the heck cares?" still stands.
fertile is more likely than impregnating (let's use a slightly more likely,
less silly example) orangutangs, then I guess Zeleny and I will simply have
to politely disagree. I say they are equally likely -i.e. not at all. I guess
we just see things differently - I like to think that my argument makes more
sense, as I am not distracted by the apparent greater concievability of
barren women becoming fertile simply because it seems less silly.
>
> >>>>cordially,
> >>>>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> >>>>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
>
> JMF:
> >>> Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
> >>>that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
>
> MZ:
> >>No deadbeat is a relative of mine.
>
> JMF:
> > But in some possible world, I could be. And wouldn't that just be a
> >thrill for both of us.
>
> But the genotype is an essential property of our bodies, Skippy.
> Either we are relatives, or it is impossible for us to be related by
> blood. Since in the actual world, as a matter of empirical fact, no
> deadbeat is a relative of mine, and since you are a _bona fide_
> deadbeat, it is impossible for us to be related. Q.E.D.
arguing over really silly things on usenet as being deadbeats, I don't know
what is.
>
> >>> Lard & Fishes,
> >>> Skipp
>
> >>cordially,
> >>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> >>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
>
> > More fun than lots of things, up to but
> > not including reruns of "Cheers,"
>
> cordially,
> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> "Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
defined as not the inherent faculty that all humans have, but as that thing my
girlfriend went to class at 8:30 in the morning to learn and got a B+ in. The
excuse is that we didn't learn it. Instead of logic, I took courses on Japanese
literature, my fave academic subject. Now, just because I think everyone should
take as much Japanese literature as possible doesn't mean that it would be fair
of me to bring up, say, Bunraku in an argument without explaining what it is
in precise, clear English, and then chastising people for being too ignorant to
know what Bunraku is, and how there is no excuse for not having a working
knowledge of Japanese literature. (By the way, Bunraku is Japanese puppet
theater - although over there it is considered a much more high-brow form of
entertainment than, say, The Muppets.)
>
> ECL:
> >>> I haven't seen in a long
> >>>time--I have no problem seeing that two women or two men could have a
> >>>potentially productive union in *some* world. (Maybe it's my science
> >>>fiction background.) Therefore, by your "reasoning," their union
> >>>should be okay. If you can't envision such a world, that, my friend,
> >>>is *your* problem, not mine.
>
> MZ:
> >>Ditto for the difference between the possible and the conceivable.
>
> JMF:
> > I make this point in another post, but what the heck, I'll make it
> >again, in a slightly different fashion. A completely, genetically barren
> >woman (perhaps one with XY chromosomes, for instance, who didn't get enough
> >testosterone in the womb - it's rare, but it happens) suddenly becoming
> >fertile is impossible. Certainly conceivable (no pun intended,) but not
> >possible.
>
> From the standpoint concerned with the essential nature (admittedly
> neither legal, nor social), as represented by the genotype, your
> protagonist would be male, appearances and phenotype notwithstanding.
homosexual sex any number of times and NOT EVEN KNOWN IT. Shudder...Anyway,
the XY chromosome individual was just an example of someone who would be the
most easily graspable example of someone who is completely barren - however,
Mickey, I await to see your argument restated to include women who are just
really, irrevocably barren.
>
> > perkily,
> > jesse fu...@unix.amherst.edu
> > "Donde esta el concerto Menudo?
>
> cordially,
> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> "Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
-Skippy
Michael Zeleny
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec17....@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
>e...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
ECL:
>>As far as I could tell from the articles on my system, your syllogism
>>went as follows:
>> Given, 1) Only potentially productive unions are moral.
>> And given, 2) The union of two males is not potentially productive.
>> Therefore, 3) The union of two males is not moral.
>
>>If #1 was somehow the conclusion (derived principle?) of some other chain
>>of reasoning, that chain is no longer on my system.
That is no excuse for assuming that (1) is a premiss. In fact, I start
with the assumption that rational investigation of human moral ends is
both desirable and possible. Both freedom of will and rationality are
prerequisites for such investigation; empirical observation suffices to
establish the fundamental relevance of human mortality and sexuality
(cf. my discussion of Bataille). The hypothesis that the *moral* end of
human sexiality is reproduction, is confirmed by exhaustion of
alternatives, -- what else could it be?
MA:
>I think most people haven't focused on this rather glaring omission,
>since Zeleny has yet to provide a coherent definition of what
>"potentially productive" even means. Once he shows that this concept
>makes sense, then he can begin to argue why it is morally significant.
On the contrary, I have provided a precise modal definition of potential
reproductiveness, as arising from the compatibility of genotypes with
the possibility of reproduction. Recall that I regard masculine and
feminine gender as necessarily correlated with genotypes XY and XX,
respectively; also recall that Kripkean metaphysics regards his
particular genotype as an essential property of each man.
MA:
>Me, I think the whole discussion is silly anyway. Most of the things
>that I do, in bed and otherwise, have no connection with reproduction
>at all; should I give up eating cheesecake, reading netnews, and
>calculating Feynman integrals just because none of those things can
>lead to making more babies?
This is a frivolous objection. Each type of activities has its moral
end; however it does not follow that there is a unique moral end for all
types of activities. Your fallacy is commonly known as an illegal
quantifier switch, though I am sure that someone with more classical
erudition could come up with a nice Latin description...
MA:
>(Well, maybe I should give up reading netnews, but that's not the
>reason...)
>--
>Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a
>(510) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
>aus...@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any
>ma...@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
cordially,
Rob Jellinghaus
>From the standpoint concerned with the essential nature (admittedly
>neither legal, nor social), as represented by the genotype, your
>protagonist would be male, appearances and phenotype notwithstanding.
Ah. So you admit that your philosophical standpoint is disconnected
from the legal, social, visual, and physical (phenotypic) standpoints.
And moreover it took you years to convince yourself it was correct.
What we have here is a viewpoint which you have clearly spent an
inordinate amount of time developing, moving further away from the
real world at each stage. It is a wonder people believe what you are
saying is relevant in any way to the real world.
Fortunately, here on USENET, you have found a community which delights
in wasting time attempting to refute eccentric theories such as yours.
This gives you an audience and gives thousands of others a chance to
decide for themselves whether your theory has merit. Not that it
matters what any of them think--you know yourself to be correct....
Thankfully, networks such as this seem to be better at exposing
bogosities and irrelevancies than many other forms of discourse.
There is room for you in your self-created mental niche, but I suspect
the vast majority of people here are seeing ever more clearly exactly
how suspect your "arguments" are. And those of us who are concerned
with the real world are very happy to see those people making up their
own minds... perhaps they will help in trying to make the real world a
safer place for people of all sexual orientations.
--
Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad
ro...@netcom.com | decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
ro...@xanadu.com | pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
on on this ridiculous thread. However, there is one point that he doesn't seem
to want to respond to...
> >
> > >>>>cordially,
> > >>>>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> > >>>>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> >
> > JMF:
> > >>> Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
> > >>>that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
> >
> > MZ:
> > >>No deadbeat is a relative of mine.
> >
> > JMF:
> > > But in some possible world, I could be. And wouldn't that just be a
> > >thrill for both of us.
> >
> > But the genotype is an essential property of our bodies, Skippy.
> > Either we are relatives, or it is impossible for us to be related by
> > blood. Since in the actual world, as a matter of empirical fact, no
> > deadbeat is a relative of mine, and since you are a _bona fide_
> > deadbeat, it is impossible for us to be related. Q.E.D.
> If you don't define two guys like us who spend *way* too much time
> arguing over really silly things on usenet as being deadbeats, I don't know
> what is.
"who are," and I think I have an argument that even the esteemed Mickey
Zeleny won't touch. Wow...scary thought, huh?
> >
> > >>> Lard & Fishes,
> > >>> Skipp
> >
> > >>cordially,
> > >>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> > >>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> >
> > > More fun than lots of things, up to but
> > > not including reruns of "Cheers,"
> >
> > cordially,
> > mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
> > "Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
> -Skipp
-Skippy
Francis Muir
You people ever talk about, oh, books? Anything like that?
Do you?
RABworm
Rob Jellinghaus
>In article <1992Dec18....@netcom.com>
>>There is room for you in your self-created mental niche, but I suspect
>>the vast majority of people here are seeing ever more clearly exactly
>>how suspect your "arguments" are. And those of us who are concerned
>>with the real world are very happy to see those people making up their
>>own minds... perhaps they will help in trying to make the real world a
>>safer place for people of all sexual orientations.
>
>arguments are meant to prevent people from "making up their own
>minds", or lessen the safety of "people of all sexual orientations",
>you are suffering from paranoid delusions.
I made no such claims and have no such delusions. Certainly I feel
that this thread has helped me make up my own mind about you, and
judging from the other replies, I am not alone. I thank you for being
as forthcoming as you have been in describing the origin and basis of
your theory. (And indeed there is nothing here to rebut--I now see
that your theory is self-consistent, assuming one shares your terms
and your definitions. I don't.)
I made the comment about "making the world a safer place..." because
I feel that people are more likely to accept those with alternate
sexualities if they learn that said alternate sexuality is as healthy,
as uplifting for the participants, and as beneficial to society as
their own. That is, people who know the facts about gay sex in the
real world are more likely to accept that gays have love lives that
are every bit as valid (morally, emotionally, and in every other way)
as straights; and people who come to feel this way are much more
likely to fully support gay rights.
Clearly there are people such as yourself who support civil rights for
all humans while spending many hours (years, in your case) detailing
why gays are nonetheless morally inferior. I am glad you support
equal rights; however, I believe that your views in no way contribute
to the honest portrayal of gay sexuality, and that you yourself are
personally bigoted against homosexuals. This is certainly your right,
but I feel that bigots (be their hatred only internal and wrapped in
layers of philosophical self-justification) make the world less safe
for the targets of their disdain. I hope that over time such
irrational hatred will diminish, through wider participation in
dialogue such as this; _that_ is what I mean by "making the world a
safer place".
Michael Zeleny
HER...@auvm.american.edu (Herschel Browne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.0...@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) says:
MZ:
>>No, Mr H, this is not the "cunt nearby" argument. The "cunt nearby"
>>argument is the fallacious claim that it is all right for a man to have
>>sex with anything, as long as he is you, or else there is a foul-mouthed
>>blowhard imbecile like yourself around, who certifies the activity as
>>genuinely progressive, in light of the Whig interpretation of history.
HB:
>>>Utterly, utterly, utterly stupid [etc.]
MZ:
>>Is something bothering you? Then repeat this mantra: "There are no
>>absolutes of any sort; consequently there is no such thing as truth,
>>justice, or beauty; most importantly, there is no such thing as human
>>nature. Therefore, none of my favorite proclivities could conceivably
>>be motivated by my resentful abomination of truth, justice, and beauty;
>>nor could they constitute a perversion of my true nature. I am a
>>paragon of harmony, integrity, and composure. It is my sincere wish
>>that the rest of the world would recognize my peerless merits, and come
>>to think and act in the same way I do."
HB:
>I am so sorry. I thought that Zeleny was motivated merely by his
>bigotry and stupidity. I was wrong. Apparently, he's got a real
>projective mental disorder. Please note in the passages above that
>he calls someone other than himself a foul-mouthed blowhard
>imbecile. Well, I don't know about the foul-mouthed part; he
>has had no experience of my mouth nor of any of its productions,
>nor have I any of his, lord LORD may it long remain so. But blowhard
>imbecile? This seems quite an apt epithet for Zeleny himself!
>Clearly a blowhard; just read aay two or three sentences that
>he's excreted on the net. And would a non-imbecile assert the
>totally idiotic stuff that he seems to relish? I leave it to the
>readership to decide who is a blowhard imbecile and who is not.
Did you learn this routine from watching Pee-Wee's Playhouse? Really,
Mr H, a fashionable fellow like yourself ought to do better invective
than this stale wank.
HB:
>But where the through-the-lookinglass ambiance gets really *spooky*
>is where he seems to imply that someone other than himself has
>set himself up to judge the correctness of various sexual acts.
>Gee, wasn't it Zeleny that did that? I never made any claim of
>morality, immorality, or anything else for any sex act whatever.
>Zeleny, as I recall, claims that certain acts between loving,
>consenting people are *immoral*. That was him, not me.
>He apparently throws the Whig interpretation of history into
>the mix as a way of showing that he remembers what I've said
>on other occasions and can extract something therefrom that
>will mystify the people reading this now, but maybe impress
>them as erudite. *yawn*
My apologies, -- I forgot that everything you did was utterly amoral.
Still, then there is nothing in it to prevent you from wishing your
lifestyle upon everyone, is there?
HB:
>He further seems to propose that it is *I* who think myself
>oh-so-extra-special; is this plausible? Or is it not Zeleny
>projecting his own narcissistic auto-eroticism onto someone
>else? Who is it who begs the whole of the usenet community
>to watch him beat off? Me? Or Zeleny? In fact, Zeleny's
>behavior reminds me very much of a line in a play that I saw
>a couple of years ago, at the Loeb in Cambridge, in fact,
>where one character calls another character's literary
>production "bad faith jacking off". That's Zeleny. Bad faith
>jacking off.
I am truly mortified. Do you do this sort of clownade on demand? If
so, I know some people who would like to hire you for their holiday
parties. With Dan Quayle leaving the political scene, there is so
little remaining opportunity to see this sort of prancing.
MZ:
>>As a disciple of Stirner, you ought to be happy with this credo.
HB:
>God he's a jerk. "Disciple of Stirner"...yeesh. Discipleship
>may be something that Zeleny indulges in, in his silly little
>Platonic other-world; some of the rest of us are a little more
>able to think for ourselves. This is actually just another
>"whig interpretation of history" remark, and quite unimpressive.
Mr H, you brought up Stirner, not I. Of course, that is just a code
word for "right is whatever I can get away with". Enjoy your moral
principles, such as they are.
>H.
>
>Herschel Browne
>"The" American University
Steve Dyer
>>>From the standpoint concerned with the essential nature (admittedly
>>>neither legal, nor social), as represented by the genotype, your
>>>protagonist would be male, appearances and phenotype notwithstanding.
>
>one? Surely it is not a task of moral philosophy to validate every
>commonplace moral judgment. Female phenotype corresponding to the XX
>genotype is the prevalent norm; and furthermore, if femininity is a
>natural kind, there is no option for its essence but the genotype.
There are women who are genetically XY; their external appearance is
completely female, and they quite naturally are raised to be and think
of themselves as women. A problem is not usually noticed until
puberty, when they fail to menstruate. This is known as the syndrome
of "complete testicular feminization", and is an X-linked genetic defect
which results in the complete absence of any cellular androgen receptors.
That is, the cells in their body don't respond to the male sex hormones
which are produced by their undescended testes. Produced in copious
amounts, I might add, because the ordinary hypothalamic feedback which
shuts off sex hormone production isn't operative. This unopposed
stimulation of the testes also causes them to produce large quantities
of estrogen, and the liver also converts much of the secreted testosterone
into estrogen. These individuals have perfectly functioning cellular
estrogen receptors, and in the absence of any opposing actions of
androgen, their phenotype is unabashedly female, as is their gender
identity.
Phenotypic "maleness" or "femaleness" arises out of a synthesis of the
opposing actions of estrogen and androgen in both men and women. If
you declare "femaleness" as being the accident of lacking a Y chromo-
some (note sarcasm, please), isn't that simply drawing the line too
early? One could argue that the cellular "defect" of lacking the
androgen receptor yields, if anything, a uber-female, since they don't
even react to the small amount of androgen found in normal women.
Indeed, it is only in the last 40-odd years or so that these young ladies
have stopped being considered "women" by certain groups (for example,
the International Olympic Committee.)
In any case, even though I think the premises of Zeleny's argument on the
moral imperative of sex are laughable, if we allow ourselves a bit of
license and postulate that Zeleny might find himself dating such a woman
(admittedly quite a leap of faith, whatever the prevalence of this syndrome)
we might also reassure him that he needn't presume that such a coupling
would be "essentially sterile", anymore than sex with a woman sterile for
some other reason would be, or anymore than if he himself might find that
his sperm count were low from too many years of drinking nuclear reactor
waste water growing up in Odessa.
Of course, the poor woman in this position might express an opinion or
two about Mikhail's "essential sterility", without any appreciation of
Aristotle or Plato or Aquinas.
Jim Kalb
>There are women who are genetically XY [ . . . ] it is only in the last
>40-odd years or so that these young ladies have stopped being
>considered "women" by certain groups (for example, the International
>Olympic Committee.)
How did this become an issue for the Olympic Committee if this is such
a rare disorder? Do these people tend to outperform the general run of
women? (I thought I would ask since I was curious and relevance to
books seems not to be an issue.)
--
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur." (Cato)
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
>
> In article <1992Dec17.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>,
> zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> >jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> >
> >>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
> >
> >>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> >
> >>>>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> >
>
>
> Let me take this time to explain my title in my signature
>
> Systems Manager and Systems Administrator...we have lots of VAXen and a few HP
> workstations, I keep them running.
>
> EGSE...NASA speak for Electronic Ground Support Equipment, all our computers,
> printers, network interconnect devices, repeaters, etc. that will be
> used to operate SRL-1.
>
> POCC...Payload Operations Command Center, the room across from Mission Control
>
> JSC....Johnson Space Center in Houston, but we are all currently at JPL in
> Pasadena, CA, a 30 minute commute from West Hollywood. I'll have to
> pack up all of our equipment 3 months prior to the mission, ship it to
> Houston, then set it up at JSC. Then after the mission, I'll have to
> ship it all back to JPL.
>
> SRL-1..Shuttle Radar Laboratory, also called Space Radar Laboratory, a big
> C- L- and X-band radar device that we are building here at JPL to
> fly in the space shuttle payload bay. It will collect images of the
> earth for various scientists in various diciplines. (the X-band portion
> was built by the German and Italian space agencies) There is suppose
> to be an SRL-2 and -3, but with FRED taking up all the shuttle flights,
> we aren't holding our breaths.
>
> STS-59 Our space shuttle flight, officially scheduled by one group in NASA for
> Oct 93, while another group within NASA has it offically scheduled for
> June 94.
>
> Also, Im 33, 5'10", 185 lbs, can bench 305, and was on a greeting card in 1983.
> And I have a MS degree in Geophysics from USC, and a BS in Geology from Purdue.
>
> Now wasn't this more interesting than the way the thread was going ?
He's got a point. Personally, I'm getting to the point where I'm
starting to annoy *myself*. Therefore, I am going to drop this silly argument,
and tell you about something far more interesting: A CD I purchased last night
for $3.89, entitled "Christmas Rap Music." First off, I bought it at Cumberland
Farms - always a good sign. Let me just say that this thing is *hilarious*.
They mangle 11 "traditional" Christmas tunes, by setting them to a cheesy
Casio home keyboard hip-hop beat and little else, except for a few anonymous
rappers. In fact, everyone is anonymous, as they (quite wisely, in my opinion)
decided not to list the names of anyone who worked on this project. Certainly
the mastering engineer would not want to be listed, as he forgot to separate
"We Three Kings" and "Jingle Bells," onto separate tracks, instead accidentally
combing them onto one 7 minute long track. No, I know what you're thinking -
it's not a medley, because there is a five scond pause between the two songs.
This is truly an amazing artifact - the back of the CD doesn't even have a
plastic covering. If anyone else is intersted in procuring this (including the
famed 12th song, "The Christmas Rap," guaranteed to leave anyone in stitches)
send your requests to Silver Bells Music, Nashville, TN (where all good rap
music is of course created) 37203.
Anyway, Tom, about this greeting card escapade...we want details!
-Skippy
Michael Zeleny
>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>>>e...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>>>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>[sententious malediction omitted]
MZ:
>>Skippy, there is no excuse for ignorance of logic, grammar, or
>>rhetoric, particularly when one presumes to flame others for their
>>alleged lack. Besides, if you are not skilled in the trivium, you
>>will not recognize precise, clear English, even when you see it.
JMF:
> There is a simple excuse for an ignorance of "logic," this being
>defined as not the inherent faculty that all humans have, but as that thing my
>girlfriend went to class at 8:30 in the morning to learn and got a B+ in. The
>excuse is that we didn't learn it. Instead of logic, I took courses on Japanese
>literature, my fave academic subject. Now, just because I think everyone should
>take as much Japanese literature as possible doesn't mean that it would be fair
>of me to bring up, say, Bunraku in an argument without explaining what it is
>in precise, clear English, and then chastising people for being too ignorant to
>know what Bunraku is, and how there is no excuse for not having a working
>knowledge of Japanese literature. (By the way, Bunraku is Japanese puppet
>theater - although over there it is considered a much more high-brow form of
>entertainment than, say, The Muppets.)
You are not excused. Unlike the ignorance of the quadrivium, which
merely leaves you at the mercy of supermarket checkout clerks, travel
agents, and building contractors, the ignorance of the trivium renders
you incapable of intelligent communication and reasoning. Feel free
to go back to the muppets.
ECL:
>>>>> I haven't seen in a long
>>>>>time--I have no problem seeing that two women or two men could have a
>>>>>potentially productive union in *some* world. (Maybe it's my science
>>>>>fiction background.) Therefore, by your "reasoning," their union
>>>>>should be okay. If you can't envision such a world, that, my friend,
>>>>>is *your* problem, not mine.
MZ:
>>>>Ditto for the difference between the possible and the conceivable.
JMF:
>>> I make this point in another post, but what the heck, I'll make it
>>>again, in a slightly different fashion. A completely, genetically barren
>>>woman (perhaps one with XY chromosomes, for instance, who didn't get enough
>>>testosterone in the womb - it's rare, but it happens) suddenly becoming
>>>fertile is impossible. Certainly conceivable (no pun intended,) but not
>>>possible.
MZ:
>>From the standpoint concerned with the essential nature (admittedly
>>neither legal, nor social), as represented by the genotype, your
>>protagonist would be male, appearances and phenotype notwithstanding.
JMF:
> So this means that you, Mikhail "Mickey" Zeleny, may have engaged in
>homosexual sex any number of times and NOT EVEN KNOWN IT. Shudder...
I doubt it.
JMF:
> Anyway,
>the XY chromosome individual was just an example of someone who would be the
>most easily graspable example of someone who is completely barren - however,
>Mickey, I await to see your argument restated to include women who are just
>really, irrevocably barren.
That's just the point, -- barring genetic disorders and gender
incompatibility, all barrenness is purely contingent.
> -Skippy
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
on your perfectly innocent newsgroup? Isn't there any way of blocking stuff
like this off, and keeping it where it (at least in terms of subject matter,
not in terms of usefulness) belongs, on alt.politics.homosexuality? I just
feel bad that, here you are, you're logging on to the net to see what some
of your friends thought of the new Douglas Coupland book or whatever, and
you're ambushed by a bunch of deadbeats arguing over whether homosexuality
is morally acceptable. I feel like a bum who got the doors confused and
wandered into The Four Seasons restaurant instead of the soup kitchen next
door. Sorry.
-Skippy
Michael Zeleny
>In article <1992Dec17.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>The hypothesis that the *moral* end of
>>human sexuality is reproduction, is confirmed by exhaustion of
>>alternatives, -- what else could it be?
RJ:
>From your standpoint (which as we know is disconnected from the
>social, physical, and legal world), probably nothing. I can easily
>believe that you have chosen particular definitions of "moral",
>"sexuality", and "reproduction" that leave you unable to reach any
>other conclusion than the one you state above. Especially since
>you've spent years gathering philosophical tidbits specifically to
>support this argument, scattering said tidbits at random under the
>impression we will be deceived into thinking there's actually a
>coherent structure of thought there somewhere.
Some remarks are in order. You know nothing of my motives, and
second-guessing them is the precise moral equivalent of Clayton
Cramer's pronouncing on the impossibility of having reasoned discourse
with homosexuals. Likewise, if you truly feel that my philosophical
premisses are specifically gerrymandered to lend deceptive support to
an irrational prejudice, it behooves you to point out specific
evidence supporting this claim, instead of casting blanket aspersions
bereft of actual content. Though I have no interest in tooting my own
horn, I shall note that in the past two years, not a single one among
my opponents in this debate has managed to convict me of a logical
inconsistency. On the other hand, any vague claims of self-evident
absurdity of my premisses will cut both ways. Exactly what is it that
makes you so anxious to refute my disapproval of your lifestyle?
RJ:
>The first rule of debate is to define your terms. You do so inter-
>minably, and have already established that your definitions assume
>your uniquely abstracted standpoint, from which possible
>reproductiveness (in some not-too-far-from-this-universe universe) is
>the moral basis for sex of any kind. These definitions do not match
>mine, nor those of most of our audience, I suspect.
Your suspicion are moot, as is any appeal to popular consensus in a
theoretical debate. In any case, if you sincerely believe that
popular consensus regards homosexual sex as morally unimpeachable, you
are utterly out of touch with social reality.
RJ:
>For me, sexual acts are good if they enhance the emotional, physical,
>and spiritual well-being of all the participants. No doubt this
>assertion is far too vague--i.e. far too concrete and close to the
>real world--to be acceptable to you. Fortunately, it doesn't matter
>whether it is acceptable to you. I know I will not convince you of
>anything; I'm concerned about the real world, from which you are
>manifestly separating yourself.
Again, this claim cuts both ways, -- if my argument is correct, it is
your chosen mode of sexuality, which separates you from moral reality.
The best you can do in this case is cut your losses by agreeing to
disagree. Incidentally, organized crime likewise can be said to
enhance the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of all the
participants. Of course, everything depends on your definition of
well-being. I note in passing that the one homosexual I knew best,
loathed his not altogether freely chosen lifestyle so much, that he
drank himself to death. Not that I wish to use this anecdotal
evidence in support of anything more contentious than the thesis that
your personal judgment of well-being has very little bearing on the
well-being of anyone else.
In article <1992Dec18.1...@netcom.com>
ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec18....@netcom.com>
>>ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
RJ:
>>>There is room for you in your self-created mental niche, but I suspect
>>>the vast majority of people here are seeing ever more clearly exactly
>>>how suspect your "arguments" are. And those of us who are concerned
>>>with the real world are very happy to see those people making up their
>>>own minds... perhaps they will help in trying to make the real world a
>>>safer place for people of all sexual orientations.
MZ:
>>Nothing here to rebut, except by noting that if you think that my
>>arguments are meant to prevent people from "making up their own
>>minds", or lessen the safety of "people of all sexual orientations",
>>you are suffering from paranoid delusions.
RJ:
>I made no such claims and have no such delusions. Certainly I feel
>that this thread has helped me make up my own mind about you, and
>judging from the other replies, I am not alone. I thank you for being
>as forthcoming as you have been in describing the origin and basis of
>your theory. (And indeed there is nothing here to rebut--I now see
>that your theory is self-consistent, assuming one shares your terms
>and your definitions. I don't.)
Thank you for your reciprocal candor. You will not be surprised to
learn that I regard my premisses as unimpeachable. However, they are
open to immediate revision, should anyone succeed in showing them to
be in error. You are always welcome to try.
RJ:
>I made the comment about "making the world a safer place..." because
>I feel that people are more likely to accept those with alternate
>sexualities if they learn that said alternate sexuality is as healthy,
>as uplifting for the participants, and as beneficial to society as
>their own. That is, people who know the facts about gay sex in the
>real world are more likely to accept that gays have love lives that
>are every bit as valid (morally, emotionally, and in every other way)
>as straights; and people who come to feel this way are much more
>likely to fully support gay rights.
I beg to differ. If you have any information that bears on the moral
validity of homosexual intercourse, I would very much like to hear
about it. But regardless of whether such information would be
forthcoming, I see no reason to suspend or taylor civil rights in
accordance with sexual preference.
RJ:
>Clearly there are people such as yourself who support civil rights for
>all humans while spending many hours (years, in your case) detailing
>why gays are nonetheless morally inferior. I am glad you support
>equal rights; however, I believe that your views in no way contribute
>to the honest portrayal of gay sexuality, and that you yourself are
>personally bigoted against homosexuals. This is certainly your right,
>but I feel that bigots (be their hatred only internal and wrapped in
>layers of philosophical self-justification) make the world less safe
>for the targets of their disdain. I hope that over time such
>irrational hatred will diminish, through wider participation in
>dialogue such as this; _that_ is what I mean by "making the world a
>safer place".
If you wish to convict me of bigotry, it is incumbent upon you to
produce a proof of irrationality of my beliefs. I assure you that you
will never succeed in this undertaking, if only because I would
immediately abjure my beliefs, should they ever be proven wrong.
>--
>Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad
>ro...@netcom.com | decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
>ro...@xanadu.com | pause, and think of hypertext."
>uunet!netcom!robj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
cordially,
Tim Fogarty
In article <1992Dec17.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>,
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
>>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>
>>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
>>>>Michael Zeleny (zel...@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>
>>>>>e...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>
>>>>>>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>>>>>>>jmf...@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
--
Tim Pierce
>Though I have no interest in tooting my own
>horn,
Seemed to me like masturbation was right up your alley.
>I shall note that in the past two years, not a single one among
>my opponents in this debate has managed to convict me of a logical
>inconsistency.
Your arguments, as far as I can tell, are logically consistent but
rooted in quicksand. If you happen to consider that a virtue, good
luck in debate class.
--
____ Tim Pierce /
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / Rocks say goodbye.
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
Michael Zeleny
>In article <1992Dec17.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>From the standpoint concerned with the essential nature (admittedly
>>neither legal, nor social), as represented by the genotype, your
>>protagonist would be male, appearances and phenotype notwithstanding.
RJ:
>Ah. So you admit that your philosophical standpoint is disconnected
>from the legal, social, visual, and physical (phenotypic) standpoints.
>And moreover it took you years to convince yourself it was correct.
>What we have here is a viewpoint which you have clearly spent an
>inordinate amount of time developing, moving further away from the
>real world at each stage. It is a wonder people believe what you are
>saying is relevant in any way to the real world.
Is it bothering you that someone can appear as a woman without being
one? Surely it is not a task of moral philosophy to validate every
commonplace moral judgment. Female phenotype corresponding to the XX
genotype is the prevalent norm; and furthermore, if femininity is a
natural kind, there is no option for its essence but the genotype. Of
course, you may be more comfortable with defining gender in accordance
with social conventions; then you just might ask yourself what makes
you feel that way. By contrast, I believe that right inheres in the
necessary laws of nature, rather than the passing conventions of
society. To each his own.
RJ:
>Fortunately, here on USENET, you have found a community which delights
>in wasting time attempting to refute eccentric theories such as yours.
>This gives you an audience and gives thousands of others a chance to
>decide for themselves whether your theory has merit. Not that it
>matters what any of them think--you know yourself to be correct....
>
>Thankfully, networks such as this seem to be better at exposing
>bogosities and irrelevancies than many other forms of discourse.
>There is room for you in your self-created mental niche, but I suspect
>the vast majority of people here are seeing ever more clearly exactly
>how suspect your "arguments" are. And those of us who are concerned
>with the real world are very happy to see those people making up their
>own minds... perhaps they will help in trying to make the real world a
>safer place for people of all sexual orientations.
Nothing here to rebut, except by noting that if you think that my
arguments are meant to prevent people from "making up their own
minds", or lessen the safety of "people of all sexual orientations",
you are suffering from paranoid delusions.
>--
>Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad
>ro...@netcom.com | decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
>ro...@xanadu.com | pause, and think of hypertext."
>uunet!netcom!robj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
cordially,
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
> You people ever talk about, oh, books? Anything like that?
>
Um..I'm posting from "alt.politics.homosexuality" If this is being
directed onto some newsgroup about books, don't blame me. I can't understand
why in the world it would be.
-Skippy
Bill Anderson
Rob Jellinghaus
>human sexiality is reproduction, is confirmed by exhaustion of
>alternatives, -- what else could it be?
From your standpoint (which as we know is disconnected from the
social, physical, and legal world), probably nothing. I can easily
believe that you have chosen particular definitions of "moral",
"sexuality", and "reproduction" that leave you unable to reach any
other conclusion than the one you state above. Especially since
you've spent years gathering philosophical tidbits specifically to
support this argument, scattering said tidbits at random under the
impression we will be deceived into thinking there's actually a
coherent structure of thought there somewhere.
The first rule of debate is to define your terms. You do so inter-
minably, and have already established that your definitions assume
your uniquely abstracted standpoint, from which possible
reproductiveness (in some not-too-far-from-this-universe universe) is
the moral basis for sex of any kind. These definitions do not match
mine, nor those of most of our audience, I suspect.
For me, sexual acts are good if they enhance the emotional, physical,
and spiritual well-being of all the participants. No doubt this
assertion is far too vague--i.e. far too concrete and close to the
real world--to be acceptable to you. Fortunately, it doesn't matter
whether it is acceptable to you. I know I will not convince you of
anything; I'm concerned about the real world, from which you are
manifestly separating yourself.
--
Rob Jellinghaus
>that this modal theory is a weird thing, -- it has taken me several
>years to accept it as meaningful, and in my own work, I still like to
>investigate even more arcane alternatives. But it does what it is
>supposed to do, i.e. illuminate its subject matter.
Indeed, I can easily believe that you would need several years to
convince yourself that what you are saying actually reflects the
facts of the matter.
Your basic premise appears to be that only essentially reproductive
sex is essentially good. Certainly you are good enough at arguing
modal logic that your arguments against gay sex being "essentially
reproductive" may be valid--especially with the benefit of several
years of study. Your consequence may follow from your premise, but
your premise is by no means unarguable, and in fact (I believe) has no
merit whatsoever.
Illuminate the justification for your premise, if you would. Feel
free to spend as many years thinking about it as you like, such that
your thought will be sufficiently abstracted from everyday life as to
be worth convincing yourself of.
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
A few days later, and Zeleny still hasn't defined "deadbeat" for us.
Could this be the end of Mickey Zeleny's reign of logic?
Stay tuned...
-Skippy
Rob Jellinghaus
I'm directing followups accordingly, and we will see if Mr. Zeleny
persists in returning them here.
In article <1992Dec20.0...@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>RJ:
>>The first rule of debate is to define your terms. You do so inter-
>>minably, and have already established that your definitions assume
>>your uniquely abstracted standpoint, from which possible
>>reproductiveness (in some not-too-far-from-this-universe universe) is
>>the moral basis for sex of any kind. These definitions do not match
>>mine, nor those of most of our audience, I suspect.
>
>Your suspicion are moot, as is any appeal to popular consensus in a
>theoretical debate.
This debate is not purely theoretical. If it were, I would not be
reading it and participating in it from alt.politics.homosexuality.
I happen to be interested in disseminating accurate information about
homosexuality to as wide an audience as possible. This conversation
with you is part of that.
>In any case, if you sincerely believe that
>popular consensus regards homosexual sex as morally unimpeachable, you
>are utterly out of touch with social reality.
Oh, I'm under no such illusions.
>Again, this claim cuts both ways, -- if my argument is correct, it is
>your chosen mode of sexuality, which separates you from moral reality.
Why would being homosexual (which I may or may not be; it's
irrelevant) separate me from moral reality? In another post, you made
some claim that the reason was "homosexuals participate in a behavior
they could not wish on all of humanity." You seemed to be using
"behavior" to mean "being homosexual". By this you seemed to mean
that if everyone were gay the species would die, therefore being gay
is morally wrong.
However, as I see it, homosexuals participate in the behavior "act
according to your sexual orientation"--which as we have well
established is in most cases an innate part of the person's genotype.
This behavior _can_ be wished on everyone, especially as it does not
matter--the development of sexual orientation is in most cases not
affected by environment. (Gay parents have as many straight kids as
straight parents.)
>Incidentally, organized crime likewise can be said to
>enhance the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of all the
>participants.
The victims are participants too. Where are the victims of
homosexuality? I am almost sure you have been over this ground
before, but lacking a good enough news system able to find the old
articles, I'll need to hear your claims again.
>Of course, everything depends on your definition of
>well-being. I note in passing that the one homosexual I knew best,
>loathed his not altogether freely chosen lifestyle so much, that he
>drank himself to death.
You are utterly out of touch with social reality if you think this had
nothing to do with the amount of bigotry directed against those with
his "lifestyle".
>In article <1992Dec18.1...@netcom.com>
>ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>>I thank you for being
>>as forthcoming as you have been in describing the origin and basis of
>>your theory. (And indeed there is nothing here to rebut--I now see
>>that your theory is self-consistent, assuming one shares your terms
>>and your definitions. I don't.)
>
>Thank you for your reciprocal candor.
You're welcome.
>You will not be surprised to
>learn that I regard my premisses as unimpeachable. However, they are
>open to immediate revision, should anyone succeed in showing them to
>be in error. You are always welcome to try.
One cannot necessarily show premisses to be in error, since they are
initial assumptions. If you would simply and plainly state your
premises, we might be able to discuss things more easily.
>RJ:
>I beg to differ. If you have any information that bears on the moral
>validity of homosexual intercourse, I would very much like to hear
>about it.
Here we are at the crux. This thread has been going on for months
now, yet you act as though no one has said anything of any relevance.
You are not going to be convinced of anything, regardless of what we
say; it simply rolls off your back. This is why I am more concerned
with the audience than with this debate; the debate will never make
any progress towards changing your mind.
>But regardless of whether such information would be
>forthcoming, I see no reason to suspend or taylor civil rights in
>accordance with sexual preference.
Nor does the Zekester, who's pestering alt.politics.homosexuality right
now. I'm not surprised you seem to share similar views on this.
>If you wish to convict me of bigotry, it is incumbent upon you to
>produce a proof of irrationality of my beliefs. I assure you that you
>will never succeed in this undertaking, if only because I would
>immediately abjure my beliefs, should they ever be proven wrong.
Um, so let me get this straight. I will never prove your beliefs are
irrational, because if I did you would immediately abandon them? This
is supposed to strengthen your claim that your beliefs are rational?
Hmmm.
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
said things which give the impression that you have some sort of relationship
with him. Being that you are in this situation, I have a few questions I want
to ask you:
1. Did Mickey make you go to a doctor to get your genotype checked
before you two engaged in any sexual relations?
2. So far, the Mickey we have seen is a sesquipedalian weenie.
However, I can't imagine that you go out with him on the basis of his Unix
posting. So, tell us about the other side of Mike Zeleny - the Mike Zeleny who
like puppy dogs, long walks on the beach, cuddling in front of a fireplace
while listening to old Barry White albums, etc. Perhaps if Mickey was
humanized a bit to us out in netland, these posts that are being made all
around would be slightly less bilious.
3. What does he do for a living, that allows him to spend so much time
on Unix without getting fired? My guess is that he works at the Harvard
computer center, as if he were a professor or some such thing, I'm sure we
would have heard about it by now.
So, Erin, it's up to you. Show us the warm, cuddly Mickey that melts
your heart. Oh, and before I forget, I have one last question:
4. Why the heck does he direct everything to rec.arts.books?
-jesse
JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS
As an act of civil disobedience, stemming from Mickey's tendency to
clutter up your newsgroup, I hereby declare that, from now on, I'm going to
direct everything from alt.video.games.classic, alt.music.bass, and every
other group that has nothing to do with anything onto alt.politics.
homosexuality.
On second thought, that would probably just annoy everyone there but
Mickey. It was a nice thought, though.
-jesse
Michael Zeleny
ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
RJ:
>Some people have asked if this could be moved out of rec.arts.books.
Really? I haven't noticed any "people" asking.
RJ:
>I'm directing followups accordingly, and we will see if Mr. Zeleny
>persists in returning them here.
Indeed I persist. Not only do I get to meet a better class of "people"
here, I also get to contribute towards determining what this group
*should* be.
>In article <1992Dec20.0...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
RJ:
>>>The first rule of debate is to define your terms. You do so inter-
>>>minably, and have already established that your definitions assume
>>>your uniquely abstracted standpoint, from which possible
>>>reproductiveness (in some not-too-far-from-this-universe universe) is
>>>the moral basis for sex of any kind. These definitions do not match
>>>mine, nor those of most of our audience, I suspect.
MZ:
>>Your suspicion are moot, as is any appeal to popular consensus in a
>>theoretical debate.
RJ:
>This debate is not purely theoretical. If it were, I would not be
>reading it and participating in it from alt.politics.homosexuality.
>I happen to be interested in disseminating accurate information about
>homosexuality to as wide an audience as possible. This conversation
>with you is part of that.
I have no interest in discussing your notion of theoretical purity,
beyond establishing whether you assent to my dismissal of popular
consensus, which is a necessary condition for making any meaningful
progress in this conversation.
MZ:
>>In any case, if you sincerely believe that
>>popular consensus regards homosexual sex as morally unimpeachable, you
>>are utterly out of touch with social reality.
RJ:
>Oh, I'm under no such illusions.
I am gratified to hear this. Shall we then dismiss popular consensus
as irrelevant, because irrational?
MZ:
>>Again, this claim cuts both ways, -- if my argument is correct, it is
>>your chosen mode of sexuality, which separates you from moral reality.
RJ:
>Why would being homosexual (which I may or may not be; it's
>irrelevant) separate me from moral reality? In another post, you made
>some claim that the reason was "homosexuals participate in a behavior
>they could not wish on all of humanity." You seemed to be using
>"behavior" to mean "being homosexual". By this you seemed to mean
>that if everyone were gay the species would die, therefore being gay
>is morally wrong.
There is no need to be touchy. I alluded to your chosen mode of
sexuality, as a result of recalling your earlier discussion thereof on
alt.sex.something-or-other. Also, I am not using "behavior" to mean
"being homosexual"; on the contrary, I maintain that the only morally
relevant sense of "being homosexual" is "participating in freely
chosen homosexual behavior".
RJ:
>However, as I see it, homosexuals participate in the behavior "act
>according to your sexual orientation"--which as we have well
>established is in most cases an innate part of the person's genotype.
>This behavior _can_ be wished on everyone, especially as it does not
>matter--the development of sexual orientation is in most cases not
>affected by environment. (Gay parents have as many straight kids as
>straight parents.)
I do not recall having established that sexual orientation is "an innate
part of the person's genotype." In any event, if the agent's particular
dispositions or inclinations are to be taken into consideration in
deciding whether acting by the means of their realization can be wished
on everyone, then there is nothing wrong with theft or murder, either,
-- after all, not everyone is going to want to kill or steal.
MZ:
>>Incidentally, organized crime likewise can be said to
>>enhance the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of all the
>>participants.
RJ:
>The victims are participants too. Where are the victims of
>homosexuality? I am almost sure you have been over this ground
>before, but lacking a good enough news system able to find the old
>articles, I'll need to hear your claims again.
To reiterate some of my assumptions, I take it that rational discourse,
in particular rational moral discourse, is both possible and desirable,
and so take human freedom of choice and rationality as its logical
prerequisites. I take it that absolute moral principles bind all
rational agents in accordance with their fundamental nature, and
regardless of their particular goals or circumstances. I take it that
rationality, sexuality, and mortality belong to the fundamental nature
of human beings, and accordingly are possessed of a moral dimension.
The rest is commentary.
Regarding your distinction of victimhood, I maintain that it begs the
question. A sincere Christian thief may be compelled to rob a rich man,
in order to increase his patient's chances of entering heaven; should
you wish to grant the status of a victim to the latter, you would have
to dismiss the validity of the religious claims of the former. Again,
if one takes Proudhon seriously by entertaining the notion that all
property might be the moral equivalent of theft, the neutral groung for
deciding victimhood in any proprietary claims becomes ever so shaky. On
my own view, borne out by my argument that homosexual sex is a grave
transgression against the moral nature of man, all participants therein
are victims of their akrastic inability to control their passions. To
prove me wrong on this matter, you would have to prove me wrong on
everything that entails it.
MZ:
>>Of course, everything depends on your definition of
>>well-being. I note in passing that the one homosexual I knew best,
>>loathed his not altogether freely chosen lifestyle so much, that he
>>drank himself to death.
RJ:
>You are utterly out of touch with social reality if you think this had
>nothing to do with the amount of bigotry directed against those with
>his "lifestyle".
You are utterly full of shit, if you think you can tell me something
about the pitiful situation of my best friend, without bothering to
inquire about his circumstances.
>>In article <1992Dec18.1...@netcom.com>
>>ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
RJ:
>>>I thank you for being
>>>as forthcoming as you have been in describing the origin and basis of
>>>your theory. (And indeed there is nothing here to rebut--I now see
>>>that your theory is self-consistent, assuming one shares your terms
>>>and your definitions. I don't.)
MZ:
>>Thank you for your reciprocal candor.
RJ:
>You're welcome.
MZ:
>>You will not be surprised to
>>learn that I regard my premisses as unimpeachable. However, they are
>>open to immediate revision, should anyone succeed in showing them to
>>be in error. You are always welcome to try.
RJ:
>One cannot necessarily show premisses to be in error, since they are
>initial assumptions. If you would simply and plainly state your
>premises, we might be able to discuss things more easily.
See above.
MZ:
>>I beg to differ. If you have any information that bears on the moral
>>validity of homosexual intercourse, I would very much like to hear
>>about it.
RJ:
>Here we are at the crux. This thread has been going on for months
>now, yet you act as though no one has said anything of any relevance.
>You are not going to be convinced of anything, regardless of what we
>say; it simply rolls off your back. This is why I am more concerned
>with the audience than with this debate; the debate will never make
>any progress towards changing your mind.
Can you entertain the thought that this impasse may be due to the fact
that my opponents have a hard time accepting that I am right?
MZ:
>>But regardless of whether such information would be
>>forthcoming, I see no reason to suspend or taylor civil rights in
>>accordance with sexual preference.
RJ:
>Nor does the Zekester, who's pestering alt.politics.homosexuality right
>now. I'm not surprised you seem to share similar views on this.
I see no reason to not read alt.politics.homosexuality, since I reject
the notion of separatist politics. If my articles appear in your group,
it is because I got tired of redirecting the follow-up from my
interlocutors' cross-posting.
MZ:
>>If you wish to convict me of bigotry, it is incumbent upon you to
>>produce a proof of irrationality of my beliefs. I assure you that you
>>will never succeed in this undertaking, if only because I would
>>immediately abjure my beliefs, should they ever be proven wrong.
RJ:
>Um, so let me get this straight. I will never prove your beliefs are
>irrational, because if I did you would immediately abandon them? This
>is supposed to strengthen your claim that your beliefs are rational?
>Hmmm.
Not quite. You will never convict me of bigotry, since should you ever
prove that my beliefs are irrational, I would immediately abandon them.
Surely a commitment to revise irrational beliefs is a necessary
condition of rationality, just as irrationality is a necessary condition
of bigotry.
>--
>Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad
>ro...@netcom.com | decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
>ro...@xanadu.com | pause, and think of hypertext."
>uunet!netcom!robj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
cordially,
David Liebman
>> This is a very, very weird argument, but I will give you points for
>>arguing it well. However, in the real world, why is possibility more
>>inclusive? In both cases, there just ain't going to be any "sex," so why
>>should it matter to anyone not merely treading in their own intellectual
>>waters?
MZ:
>In fact, "the real world" gets very, very weird, if only the actual
>events are considered as making the basis for its description. For
>instance, lacking access to the facts of the subject matter, there
>would be nothing in the actual world to allow you to favor in any way
>a consistent truth-teller over a consistent liar. This is not just an
>epistemological issue, wherein only the evidence would be lacking, but
>a metaphysical one, wherein the lack of evidence would entail the lack
>of facts of the matter.
lacking the facts of the matter, it would of course be of no concern to
us whether you are an honest man or a liar; any consequence attributable
to your utterances would serve to simultaneously reveal both facts and
forthrightness.
MZ:
>In other words, counterfactual reasoning can tell you more about the
>intrinsic nature of things, as opposed to the way they happen to be.
the intrinsic nature of things, in turn, can only tell you about
the potential ways they could happen to be.
JMF:
>>>> By the way, what if they can't switch to the ol' bump and grind? For
>>>>instance, I have quite a few friends here at college who are going out with
>>>>female virgins. The women do not wish to lose their virginity at this
point,
MZ:
>>>Skippy, if you need me to tell you what's wrong with this picture, you
>>>have no chance of getting it straight anyway.
JMF:
>> I'm pretty sure that what you mean by "what's wrong with this picture"
>>is not the fact that these women won't have sex. But what is your definition
>>of the realm of possibility? The chances of a barren woman suddenly becoming
>>fertile during sex is about equal to the odds of a gay man suddenly growing
>>a womb and being able to bear children with semen entering through his mouth.
>>True, in some possible world, this woman could be feritle - but in some
>>possible world, we could also impregnate aardvarks. Does this make
>>bestiality okay with you?
MZ:
>That's just the thing, Skippy, -- the chances are *not* the same, in
>light of what we know about the nature of sexuality.
in light of what most of us know about the nature of sexuality, the
chances -- that is, the statistical probablilities -- are (in some
identifiable cases) precisely the same: nil. if your comprehension of
biology leads you to believe otherwise, do clue us in.
MZ:
>I will admit
>that this modal theory is a weird thing, -- it has taken me several
>years to accept it as meaningful, and in my own work, I still like to
>investigate even more arcane alternatives. But it does what it is
>supposed to do, i.e. illuminate its subject matter.
devotion of such immense effort to arguing that sex between
two men is not essentially different than sex between a man and an
infertile woman, which, i suspect, few of you would maintain given
a somewhat different venue.
given that i am not familiar with this modal theory save for mikhail's
brief expositions, i will refrain from disputing its veracity. i will
also, reluctantly, refrain from further discussing its utter uselessness.
one question, though: why, specifically under the auspices of modal theory,
is the practice of celibacy (which has as much chance of being producing
babies as the practice of homosexuality) not equally immoral?
note, however, that the premise that procreation is the only morally
relevant aspect of sexuality is equally essential to mikhail's position.
this reference to the survival of the species, i take it, is the requisite
anchor in materiality. given this, the continued spawning of humanity
is only a morally relevant concern if it is _materially_ affected
by the act in question, which in this case is evidently not so.
pending dismissal of that proposition, i'd like to take this opportunity
to wag my finger at everyone who couldn't recall that _happiness_
(that's the classical term, i believe) may also be, as the saying goes,
a morally relevant concern. once again i think i'll just say it and wait
for someone to dare a refutation.
finally, i wanted to make sure that everyone noticed that mikhail, in
his corrections to someone's review of his argument, indicated that
his position is that homosexual recreation is not morally _praiseworthy_.
in other words, it is assumed that the appreciation and applause of
the moral order ought to be relevant to the conduct of our sexual
activities. kinky, no?
regards,
dave
Rob Jellinghaus
>In article <1992Dec21.0...@netcom.com>
>ro...@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>>This debate is not purely theoretical. If it were, I would not be
>>reading it and participating in it from alt.politics.homosexuality.
>>I happen to be interested in disseminating accurate information about
>>homosexuality to as wide an audience as possible. This conversation
>>with you is part of that.
>
>I have no interest in discussing your notion of theoretical purity,
>beyond establishing whether you assent to my dismissal of popular
>consensus, which is a necessary condition for making any meaningful
>progress in this conversation.
And I have repeatedly asserted that I do not believe you will alter
your position regardless of what happens in our discussion. Let me
be perfectly clear: I believe you are as fixed in your beliefs as
Clayton Cramer is in his. I do not believe you will alter your
position one iota, no matter what arguments anyone musters against
you. I believe you will continue to post your position essentially
unaltered for years to come, as long as you have access to the net.
Thus, I am attempting to uncover your assumptions and arguments, in
order to present my opposing position. I do this hoping that our
audience will determine for itself which of us is correct, since I
know you will not admit defeat.
>MZ:
>>>In any case, if you sincerely believe that
>>>popular consensus regards homosexual sex as morally unimpeachable, you
>>>are utterly out of touch with social reality.
>
>RJ:
>>Oh, I'm under no such illusions.
>
>I am gratified to hear this. Shall we then dismiss popular consensus
>as irrelevant, because irrational?
Not at all. Popular consensus can change over time as a result of
ongoing dialogue and access to accurate information. I am working
to bring about just such a change.
>To reiterate some of my assumptions, I take it that rational discourse,
>in particular rational moral discourse, is both possible and desirable,
>and so take human freedom of choice and rationality as its logical
>prerequisites. I take it that absolute moral principles bind all
>rational agents in accordance with their fundamental nature, and
>regardless of their particular goals or circumstances. I take it that
>rationality, sexuality, and mortality belong to the fundamental nature
>of human beings, and accordingly are possessed of a moral dimension.
>The rest is commentary.
Your definitions of "absolute moral principles", "fundamental nature",
and "rational agents" are at issue here. I assert you have chosen
definitions for these terms that you can use to support your philo-
sophical argument against homosexuality. I do not believe that your
definitions are acceptable.
>Regarding your distinction of victimhood, I maintain that it begs the
>question. ....
And I maintain otherwise. Your parable seems to have no bearing on my
question. Where are the victims of homosexuality? Who is harmed by
mutually consensual homosexual behavior? Is it your claim that
fundamentalists are harmed because such behavior is against their
religion? Your example of a Christian thief robbing a rich man to
help the rich man get into heaven has no obvious relevance to the
question I asked. Can you elucidate?
>On my own view, borne out by my argument that homosexual sex is a grave
>transgression against the moral nature of man, all participants therein
>are victims of their akrastic inability to control their passions.
This you have repeatedly stated, and I do not doubt you will continue
to so state as long as you have net access. Once again, I assert that
your definition of "moral nature of man" is specifically chosen to
exclude homosexuality, and that other definitions are both possible,
philosophically consistent, and more socially worthwhile.
Unfortunately I am not a philosopher, and do not have the time to
expend doing research to battle you on your own philosophical turf.
I'm spending at least an hour a day on these conversations as is,
and you by your own admission have spent years carefully crafting
these anti-gay arguments. I will simply note that unless all the
philosophers in the world agree with every point you have made,
there are clearly lots of differing philosophical positions, and
there are many grounds on which to choose between them.
>MZ:
>>>Of course, everything depends on your definition of
>>>well-being. I note in passing that the one homosexual I knew best,
>>>loathed his not altogether freely chosen lifestyle so much, that he
>>>drank himself to death.
>
>RJ:
>>You are utterly out of touch with social reality if you think this had
>>nothing to do with the amount of bigotry directed against those with
>>his "lifestyle".
>
>You are utterly full of shit, if you think you can tell me something
>about the pitiful situation of my best friend, without bothering to
>inquire about his circumstances.
What were his circumstances? And no, I do not believe that I am
necessarily full of shit. You describe him as hating his "lifestyle".
Why did he hate it? As I and many others have pointed out repeatedly,
there is nothing about being homosexual that _a priori_ implies an
unhappy life. In my experience, the most common contributing causes
of suicide among gays is despair at feeling inferior and stigmatized.
Statistics on teen suicide support this claim. I do not know how much
of your friend's sad condition was due to causes such as this, but I
do not doubt these issues played a part. Am I wrong?
Pardon my candor, but if this man really was your best friend, and if
you shared your opinions with him as you have with us on the net, I
can believe you might have convinced him that his basic sexual
inclination was fundamentally at odds with basic human nature, and
that behaving according to his basic instincts would be a morally
wrong thing to do. This is after all what you have been saying here.
If you did so convince him, then I _definitely_ believe this played a
part in his despair.
>>One cannot necessarily show premisses to be in error, since they are
>>initial assumptions. If you would simply and plainly state your
>>premises, we might be able to discuss things more easily.
>
>See above.
I do not consider your above presentation to be sufficiently plain.
You have simply referred to "fundamental nature", "absolute moral
standards", and suchlike, as though mentioning a term defined it.
I reiterate: your definitions for those terms have been chosen to
support your argument, and other definitions are both possible and
preferable.
>>the debate will never make
>>any progress towards changing your mind.
>
>Can you entertain the thought that this impasse may be due to the fact
>that my opponents have a hard time accepting that I am right?
I certainly can. I do not believe that is the case, any more than
I believe Clayton Cramer is right simply because his opponents have
failed to get him to admit he is wrong.
>You will never convict me of bigotry, since should you ever
>prove that my beliefs are irrational, I would immediately abandon them.
>Surely a commitment to revise irrational beliefs is a necessary
>condition of rationality, just as irrationality is a necessary condition
>of bigotry.
Such a commitment is necessary but not sufficient. I believe that you
hold irrational beliefs which you claim are rational, and no amount of
argument will persuade you to admit otherwise. In this case, your
commitment to change should you be proven wrong is irrelevant, since
you will never admit to being wrong.
Erin Zhu
name as stupid as *that*?
In article <BzLwn...@unix.amherst.edu> jmf...@unix.amherst.edu
(JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> Say, Erin.
Yes, Skippy.
>You seem to know Mickey fairly well.
I'm egotistical enough to think so. Whether I do or not tends to be
questionable at the worst times.
> In fact, you have
>said things which give the impression that you have some sort of relationship
>with him.
R*l*t**nsh*p, Skippy dearie, is a dangerous word, one that I hate having
applied to myself in conjunction with anyone I like, but you may use that
word if you wish.
>Being that you are in this situation, I have a few questions I want
>to ask you.
> 1. Did Mickey make you go to a doctor to get your genotype checked
>before you two engaged in any sexual relations?
No. He took my word for it that I was (and still am) female. Good thing
he did, too.
> 2. So far, the Mickey we have seen is a sesquipedalian weenie.
I noticed. He would, I believe, concur if you'd substitute "asshole"
for "weenie".
>However, I can't imagine that you go out with him on the basis of his Unix
>posting.
Ahem. As a matter of fact, we had the colossal misfortune of meeting
over the 'net (misfortune, as it tends to generate immediate unstoppable
giggles). I went out with him in the beginning because I happened to
like his email and phone communications, which are rather different
from his flame-war postings, of course. They are nowhere as tedious,
for one thing...
>So, tell us about the other side of Mike Zeleny - the Mike Zeleny who
>like puppy dogs,
He likes Akitas, huge Japanese dogs with a tendency to weigh more than
yours truly when fully grown. Our apartment currently has no room
for such inhabitants, I'm afraid.
>long walks on the beach,
long ride on a motorcycle would be more appealing.
>cuddling in front of a fireplace
>while listening to old Barry White albums, etc.
Ewww, puke. C'mon, at least grant me a _little_ taste in music, 'kay?
I may not be 17 anymore, but still...
>Perhaps if Mickey was
>humanized a bit to us out in netland, these posts that are being made all
>around would be slightly less bilious.
> So, Erin, it's up to you. Show us the warm, cuddly Mickey that melts
>your heart.
Hey, the man's got a net.reputation to keep up, y'know? I sure ain't
about to ruin it for him. Anyhow, I don't think a warm & fuzzy MZ
would be nearly as much fun on the 'net. I mean, think of the loss of
such an excellent target for people to indiscriminately flame...
>Oh, and before I forget, I have one last question:
> 4. Why the heck does he direct everything to rec.arts.books?
Ask him yourself; you expect me to know _everything_?
> -jesse
--Erin
Stephen Grossman
Pierce is right. Consistency, outside of a metaphysical context, is
illogical and merely a concern with the objectively false consistency theory of
truth. Truth is correspondence with reality. Logic is objective, a product of
the mind's volitional contact with reality. Logic is not subjective
(inc/the arbitrary and conventional). Logic is based on the metaphysics of
identity, i.e., existence is identity OR things are what they are. Logic is
objectively defined as the art or method of (the) non-contradictory identifica-
tion (of existence). Zeleny avoids contradictions, which is important, but he
also avoids reality. Rationalism is false. His merely consistent logic reduces
to symbol manipulation; this is not reasoning about reality via concepts.
On the other hand, rationalism, with its logic, is superior to empiricism,
with its lack of logic. Further, empiricism is superior to rationalism, with
its lack of contact with reality. Rationalism is reason w/o reality and
empiricism is reality w/o reason. The alternative is objectivity, the
volitional and logical connection of mind to reality.
Assuming I have correctly read the convoluted "arguments" about
homosexuality correctly, Zeleny's opponents want to guide their actions with
emotion and Zeleny correctly identifies the resulting contradictions. Human
nature, with its biological heterosexuality, is missing as the needed context.
This bio. hetero. is a fact to be considered. Whatever one decides is the rat-
ional evaluation of BH, it must be, implicitly or explicitly, considered. This
does mean that each sex act should be for reproduction. It means that sex
exists only because there is such a fact as BH (with the potential for repro-
duction. With this as our meta. context, understanding and evaluating homo.
is now possible.
Refusing to consistently focus one's mind on reality leads to...nasty
things such as MTV, postmodern philosophy, Slick Willie, the Iraqi challenge to
US military power, Somali gunmen shooting at US Marines, and well, most of
history. "Eek, it's reality."
================================================================================
"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
AYN RAND
================================================================================
Stephen Grossman <PMSC...@UMASS.EDU>
================================================================================
Joan Shields
>You people ever talk about, oh, books? Anything like that?
Well, we could talk about books one should read during a particularly
boring round of sex?
Yours in wet fishes and alligator kisses,
Joan