From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 04:46:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.230310.5886@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.211622.8055@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>I'd get VERY worried if you started a movement of Rescorla haters.
>If I thought they were really going to kill me, I'd probably either
>try to stop it by "whatever means necessary" or run like a son
>of a bitch.

Please expand on what "whatever means necessary" includes.  I take
it that it does not include the accusation that your persecutors
are unjust, wrong, immoral, whatever.

>>Did the Jews have any right to criticize the Nazis before they started
>>getting stuffed into gas chambers?  How much before?  IMO, this planet
>>will never see peace until we learn to fight bigotry and hatred at its
>>source, rather than waiting for it to escalate into warfare.
>
>You misunderstand, sir. You're permitted to criticize as much as
>you want. What I am disagreeing with is your characterization of
>this teaching as "morally wrong" just as I disagree with the characterization
>of Rescorlas as "people who should be killed" and the characterization
>of gays as "sick, immoral, etc." 

Why do you disagree with my characterization of Rescorlas as "people
who should be killed?"  Please prove me wrong.  Perhaps you could also
explain how the Jews should have proven to the Nazis that it was wrong
for the Nazis to throw them into gas chambers.  Substitute whatever
word you find to be a suitable replacement for "wrong" above.

>1) I think that whatever you choose to do is morally acceptable, because
>I don't believe in morality, so I couldn't possibly judge it
>as unacceptable.

This is ridiculous.  If everybody thought this way, what would become
of justice?  Do you believe in justice?  Do you believe that if I
mug you that I should be brought to trial?  Who would preside over
the trial if nobody had any basis on which to decide what was unacceptable
and what wasn't?

>2) I don't believe in morality myself, so I think that gays
>are wrong in invoking morality to fight bigotry. I also think that
>the bigots are wrong in invoking their morality to justify their bigotry.
>Therefore, in this instance, I think that both groups are "incorrect".

Then what do you mean when you say:

   #After all, it would seem to me that if one indeed believed
   #that homosexuality was sinful and imperilled another's soul,
   #he would have a duty to inform him of that, at the very least.

In my book, believing that homosexuality is sinful, and believing
that it is immoral, is the same thing.  It appears to me then, that
you support the right of the bigots to rant about morality, yet
you would deny that same right to homosexuals.  And on what basis
do you make these judgements at all?  It seems to me that if you
have no ideas about what is right and what is wrong (ie. you don't
believe in morality) then you really have no basis on which to
criticize or support either side.  Nor would you have any basis
for contributing to a hypothetical thread about whether or not it
was permissable to exterminate Rescorlas from the planet.

I'm also having a hard time understanding what it is you're asking
for when you ask for substantiation of the claim that X is immoral,
as you have done on a number of occasions.  For example:

   #>- It strikes me that the claim that bigotry is "immoral" is every bit
   #>- as tenuous as the claim that homosexuality is "immoral". While
   #>- I agree that there is no support for the latter, neither do I
   #>- see support for the former.
   #>
   #>Well, when bigotry hurts children, I'd call it immoral.
   #This from the man who proclaimed so loudly that there are no absolutes??
   #
   #In any case, you have simply repeated what Ms. Beatty asserted,
   #not provided any substantiation for the claim. Your repetition
   #of the claim does nothing to support it. Perhaps you would care
   #actually substantiate it?

It seems rather meaningless to me for you to ask for support for
a moral judgement, when, since you don't believe in morality, it is
obvious that no such support can be forthcoming.  Apparently, it
isn't enough to demonstrate that bigotry causes needless suicides.
What would be enough?  Why do you speak of substantiation for a concept
which you consider nonexistant, in a way that might lead one to believe
that such substantiation was possible?

>I have criticized both assertions in this forum, however right now
>the predominant voices are those who are claiming that bigotry is
>"immoral" so my skepticism is directed at them.

As far as I can tell, what you're doing is not skepticism.  It looks
more like obfuscation to me.

>Do I really need to preface every criticism I make of someone supporting
>gay rights with "I support gay rights but ..."

No, you don't.  Why do you ask?  BTW, *do* you support gay rights?
Why or why not?
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_