Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:02:13 EST
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <dliebman.2vpk@terapin.com> 
dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:

MZ:
>>>>Shall we then dismiss popular consensus
>>>>as irrelevant, because irrational?

RJ:
>>>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.

MZ:
>>So far, all you can oppose to my arguments, is your say-so, augmented
>>by transparent emotional propaganda.

dl:
>i take it that emotion, along with rationality, sexuality, and
>mortality, is also essential to human nature.  your perfunctory
>sniffling at such issues thus constitutes an egregious neglect
>of your moral reasoning.  while you might in due course conclude
>that this consideration is unbalanced by the others you insist
>upon, your failure to even attempt an accounting for the emotional
>essences of some millions of individuals immediately dulls the
>integrity of your argument.  and the discreet suggestion that
>the former existence of your erstwhile queer bestest buddy is at
>all indicative of the social concerns and emotional constitutions of
>homosexuals in general is not only irrational -- it is also absurdly
>crude.

You are mistaking me for somebody who gives a fuck about your
emotions.  How quaint.

MZ:
>>Since none of these will affect
>>the moral basis of the issue, and since at this time I am not at all
>>interested in pursuing its political implications, 

dl:
>how very convenient.  by dismissing consideration of social or political
>implications, you thereby avoid accounting for possible moral ones,
>such as the undue restriction of personal liberties and the taking of
>freedom and life by philosophically empowered queer-bashers, that
>might follow from the successful wishing-on of your position.

I have already spoken on this subject.  "Philosophically empowered
queer-bashers"?  Get a grip on yourself, liebman.

dl:
>what, mikhail, is your position on the _material_, ie. actual,
>injunction against homosexual activities that your argument entails?

Negative, if by "actual" you mean political.

dl:
>in what way does a moral imperative grounded against a modal reality
>(the damping off of the interminable flow of babies) permit an
>actualization of said imperative which involves such tangible (though,
>i will assume here, 'modally' justifiable) infrigements upon competing
>moral imperatives as mentioned above?

There is no competition between duty and convenience.

dl:
>and why does modal logic not reject your assumption of an indefinite
>compulsion to procreate as an impenetrable moral axiom, on the grounds
>that indefinite procreation might eventually (as though it has not
>already!) result in reductions in the quality and quantity of human
>life due to, for instance, ecological disintegration, or economic
>rarefication and ensuing social tensions and famine?  please expound
>not only upon the applicability of modal logic, but also upon the
>'trashing of Consequentialism' that dismisses such considerations.

No.  My interest in this discussion has waned.  The questions you ask
have been adequately addressed by my betters; if you truly wish to
know the answers, look in the literature.

MZ:
>>I am not interested
>>in continuing this exchange.  However, I suggest that if you really
>>wish to effect a change in *moral* attitudes, you had better learn to
>>justify your preferences with a *moral* argument.

dl:
>i do hope your ability to parse my tedia has improved enough for you
>to observe that i have done so.

Too little, too late.

>regards,
>dave

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc