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: 17 Dec 92 17:35:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec17.123506.18613
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <BzEAGC.C4o@unix.amherst.edu> 
jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:

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

>>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.

[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 fuchs@unix.amherst.edu
> "Donde esta el concerto Menudo?
 
cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality