HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zhu@athena.mit.edu (Erin Zhu)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:14:36 GMT

In article <Bz5yrn.BLs@unix.amherst.edu> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu
(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


Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2994 rec.arts.books:22584 alt.politics.homosexuality:8058
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:15:47 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <BzDnKr.5F0@unix.amherst.edu> 
jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:

>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:

>>jmfuchs@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 zeleny@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

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2989 rec.arts.books:22570 alt.politics.homosexuality:8050
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes posssible reproductiveness
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:44:49 EST
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec16.212451.25986@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.152321.18570@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <BzCIMK.AK3@unix.amherst.edu>
>>jmfuchs@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  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
>--
>"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
>"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr

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

Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2980 rec.arts.books:22540 alt.politics.homosexuality:8040
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:23:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec16.152321.18570
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <BzCIMK.AK3@unix.amherst.edu> 
jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:

>	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.

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

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Where are they now: nathAYNiel (sic) bRANDen?
Summary: Alive? Dead? Glue-sniffin' Marxist?
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:15:53 GMT
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Ayn Rand buffs, please help me out here: I would like to know what
happened to Ayn Rand's once-faithful friend, Nathaniel Branden.
As you most certainly know, the (1970, I believe) forward to her 
little collection of essays on capitalism notes that Mr. Branden is
no longer associated with her, her philosophy, or her publication. 
I liked his critique of the postwar prattle about 'alienation' in
modern society by Erich Fromm et al, and while I am glad that Ms.
Rand did not drop the essay from later editions of the book, I am 
just itching to know what became of him.

Is is true that he pulled back the curtain .. and .. saw her penis?
No, I apologize for being crude here, but at times I just cannot 
help blushing when she chides me to keep a stiff upper lip.  You 
should run, run away from tough, manly women, for they are extremely
dangerous.

When Branden left the All-Unity People's Objectivism ranch in Death
Valley, CA, did he bring his lovely wife with him?  Did she disagree
with him and tell him to go his own individual way?  Did Mr. Branden
write a shocking memoir, an expose of the annals of Randianism?  And
what new ideas did he adopt? - or did he reject philosophy and then 
perish?

No, no, no, I don't mean to mock Ms. Rand or her philosophy, the 
acquaintance of both of which I have enjoyed quite a bit.  I only adopt
a mildly satirical tone here to avoid (hopefully) the sort of jihad-
type posts I have seen on both sides of her fence.  I will not offer my
opinions of her ideas for public consumption right now - I just want 
to know the fate of Mr. Branden.  Is he still with us the Living? 
 
If you really want to understand a philosophical school, sit down
and talk with a few of its former members, its heretics and
disillusioned.
Thanks much,
cg

-- 
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu      :::::====== 
:::::======  Paleoconservative and proud-  :::::======  
===========  fighting to repeal the New    ===========  
===========  Deal, for a better tomorrow.  ===========  
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:44:38 GMT

	Hello, folks on rec.arts.books. Why the hell is this whole silly thing
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 
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: The Golden Rule Correctly Understood
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:32:54 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <BzDGrK.IAp@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>The Xtian version of the Golden Rule is an altruistic perversion of the

What ever do you mean? What do you mean by "altruistic" and "perversion" in
this context? And what is "Xtian"? I gather that these words carry some
emotive baggage for you--but I'm a bit puzzled about why they're here.

I suppose your version of the Golden Rule differs from the "Xtian" version
in that it is merely negative--it enjoins us to _refrain_ from certain
actions, while the "Xtians" (bless their hearts, whoever they may be)
actually want us to do those things for others that we would like others to
do for us. Now why do you think that the negative injunction is in some way
superior to the positive one? Don't you think this merits a bit of
explanation--and maybe even an argument or two?



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2944 rec.arts.books:22378 alt.politics.homosexuality:7967
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproduction
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:56:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec14.125606.18476
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec14.071436.9259@athena.mit.edu> 
zhu@athena.mit.edu (Erin Zhu) writes:

>In article <Bz5yrn.BLs@unix.amherst.edu> 
>jmfuchs@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
>
>

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproduction
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:30:21 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Bill Anderson writes:

	You people ever talk about, oh, books?  Anything like that?   

Do you?

							RABworm
From: oedipus@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 12:11:04 PST
Reply-To: oedipus@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us



In the recent discussion on Consciousness and Materialism...

This type of logical analysis to determine where _I_ originates from,
including the idea of substituting  portions of physical anatomy, is 
a standard traditional contemplation in Buddhist schools ( and perhaps
in other eastern meditative traditions).

The final conclusion of this rigorous, logical, analysis is that _I_
(and/or _self_, _consciousness_ in some d[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[Cs) cannot be found
to exist anywhere.  It seems to exist while we are alive in a body,
dependent upon a body, yet it is not in any one place and it is somehow
associated with all places in the body (as in _my foot_).  If one spends
the time to think through all of the implications and associations, one
tends to arrive at a sort of paradox.

Like all paradoxes, the resolusion requires a radical shift [D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[Dlution of the paradox requires a radical shift
in perspective/concept where all of the various _contraditory_ sides can be
seen as parts of a larger whole.

The whole, in this case, is that the _self_ as most people currently conceive
of it simple does not exist.  Which is why it cannot be found, cannot be 
defined rigorously, and posseses contradictory aspects.      

This _self_ seems to be quite real and permanent when it is left unexamined,
yet its true nature is empty (yes, that word) of inherent independent
existence, and it seems to exist only due to interdependent origination
(another fundamental concept).  There are many, many profound implications
of these concepts.

Incidentally, _Interdependent Origination_ and _Emptiness_ are almost 
synonymous concepts in Buddhist thought, emptiness means empty of inherent
independent existence, it does not mean empty in a void nihilistic sense.

For more information, check out any traditional Buddhist text dealing with
contemplations/analyses of _self_, _I_, _emptiness_, _interdependence_, etc.
There are many translations into English, just be careful as different
translators use different English words or phrases for the same word in
Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, etc.

Enjoy,
Edsarr
-- 
Rev.Dr.Oedipus P. Wienushausen        #    The only constant is change;
oedipus@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us	      #      enjoy the illusory dance. 
                                      #   Love is the nature of universe. 
Poised on the brink: Utopia/Oblivion  #  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:16:55 GMT

In <zlsiida.519@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

>In article <ByLpBn.72M@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jackson@daimler.ucs.indiana.edu (Jeff Jackson) writes:

>>Someone wrote:

>>>The second sentence is of course speculation: however, try this: remove all 
>>>neurones from a human - is it still conscious?  No: therefore, in the widest 
>>>sense of the words 'brain' and 'function', consciousness is a brain function.

This is assuming, of course, a materialistic philosophy.

>>So, remove all the water from a human - is it still conscious? No: therefore
>>consciousness is a function of water. Or is it carbon, or oxygen, or nitrogen,
>>or ...?

>It's a function of the body, ie it's an emergent property of the physical 
>being.  Next we check how many and which bits we can chop off before it 
>disappears.  Arms aren't required.  Nor legs.  Nor abdomen. etc etc.

What about neurons?  They die off from time to time, and yet, while the
quality of my consciousness may suffer from it, it is still the same *I*
that is conscious.

>Subject to keeping the body alive, it seems to be possible to dispense with 
>most of it except a minimum quantity of brain.  So I say it's a brain 
>function, or more properly, an emergent property of the brain.  I'm still 
>waiting to find out if it is located in a particular part of the brain or if 
>it can relocate or if it is distributed in some way.

If you believe in materialism, the localization hypothesis seems almost 
untenable in the light of the following thought experiment.  Your neurons
are replaced one at a time with new ones, identical in every way.  Eventually
every one is replaced and nothing of the original brain remains.  When
did *you* become annihilated?

But the distribution and relocation hypothesis is not much better.  This
time imagine you have an identical twin, and now the new neurons are 
coming from him and the ones of yours that they replace are going to his
brain to replace the ones that were transferred to yours.  At what point
are *you* transferred to your twin's body?  Or do you stay in your body
and the twin stay in his?

Peter Nyikos