From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 19:24:13 GMT

In <1992Oct28.101701.2639@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>In article <1992Oct26.232217.20528@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, 
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) whines:
>> In article <1992Oct24.131736.2602@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>>In article <nyikos.719532992@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>[...]
>>>> I'm even beginning to wonder how deep your personal aversion
>>>> to abortion is.
>>>
>>>Fuck off, Peter.  Quit claiming to think you know what I believe.

Sorry, Brian.  We had a discussion about how esthetic and emotional
considerations should not enter into a debate, and I clean forgot 
that you *did* tell me that you and your wife *knew* abortion is
morally wrong.  My sincere apologies.

>>>If I presented my own personal opinions of abortion and said
>>>I thought they should be enacted into law my ass would be flamed
>>>crispier than Jeffery James Price's.  The reason I am pro-choice is
>>>because I am not as narrow-minded as some people are in thinking that
>>>my personal opinions should be enacted into law.

This is the kind of talk that clouded my mind and made me wonder whether
you had changed your moral stance.  After all, to *know* something and to
call it an *opinion* are two very different ways of looking at things.

>>  You still haven't
>>>answered my email question:  Why should everybody be forced to
>>>obey anti-abortion laws just because *you* think that somebody may
>>>"be home" 5 weeks after conception?  I assume you don't have an answer
>>>for this, otherwise you would have emailed it to me a week ago.

I saw no pressing need to answer it, and still don't.  It would seem to
me that the person who would allow that "somebody home" to be consigned
to oblivion without even a fair trial is the one with explaining to do.

>>>>Does it go any deeper than Bush's aversion to broccoli?
>>>
>>>Once more:  Fuck off, Peter.

Once again, I am sorry.  But if you do not base your moral stance against
abortion on sympathy for that "somebody home," on what *do* you base it?

>> I never knew that the F word was acceptable in a debate.  Interestinng.

>Who's debating?  How would you react, Simon, if Peter posted that he thought
>your personal aversion to abortion was comparable to Bush's aversion to 
>broccoli?  Would you be happy about it?

I did not say I thought anything, I asked a question.  Apparently some
questions are so loaded that the questioner can only be dealt with by
resorting to gutter language.  Interesting how you keep esthetics and
emotions separate from other things, Brian.

Here is what you said in a recent e-mail to me, between the ____ lines:
[The > paragraph is from a mailing by me.]
		___________________________

When you are trying to hold a rational discussion you *must* try to keep
emotional clouds at bay.  Sure, you may make an argument about appearances
once in a "weak" while, but *really* there is no reason to grant extra
moral weight on the grounds of appearances.  This was one of the key
lessons I learned from my Contemporary Social Issues prof.  If you
want to find out what is right and what is wrong, you cannot allow
yourself to be biased by warm fuzzy feelings.  I made a billion and
a half examples in that sonogram/mother of all prejudices post.

>I can do it, as you have just seen, but to go beyond that and attack
>someone for trying to appeal to those natural emotions I spoke about
>earlier in this paragraph, is something I would not do and would leave
>to those pro-choicers with strong pro-abortion leanings, like Storga,
>Cochran, Keegan, Regard, and Garvin.

It has *nothing* to do with being pro-abortion.  It is apalling to argue from
either side about rights equating to moral worth.  My attack on Chaney/
everyone else with similiar appeal to emotion arguements was
completely called for.  If we want to make people cry and feel bad, then
maybe we should resort to these tactics, but if we want to get to the
heart and truth of the matter, then such appeals should be trashed.
			_________________

But uses of gutter language should not be trashed, eh?

Lest anyone think I stepped out of line by making e-mail public, this
is a direct quote from a subsequent post of Brian:

"I urge you to say anything you want in public.  You have my permission
to post any email you receive from me from the beginning of time to the
end.  I have nothing to hide."

>> I get flamed white hot for making pro-life statements.  Now, did I EVER
>> throw obscenities or go out of my way to be obnoxious??

>What's wrong with using the word "fuck"?  You don't get flamed white-hot,
>and when you get flamed, you get flamed for making unintelligent statements.
>Not pro-life statements.

Unless they appeal to warm fuzzy feelings.  Appeals to one's obscene side
are OK, though. :-)
 
>> I don't quote a medical library, I get flamed, but the flames have no
>> substance to them.   I get attacked for my views but my response is
>> dismissed as 'whining' about things. 

>Like this time?  "Waaahhhh!  I ALWAYS get flamed, but Brian doesn't even
>get flamed for saying the "F" word!  Waaahhhh!"  I hate to say it, Simon,
>but this post is a perfect example of whining.

I dunno, I think Brian is misrepresenting Simon here.

*I* think saying "Fuck off, Peter" is just a disguised form of whining.
Simon was barking up the wrong tree, IMNSHO, by concentrating on the
first word and ignoring the rest of the sentence.

>> As if I'll just stop posting because
>> someone might not like what I say.  And one of you has actually requested
>> that I do myself a favor and give up the net, because of the flak caused by
>> my postings.  Since when is telling an opponent to get lost a part of free
>> and open discussion.  Liberal censorship??  Nah......    (or is it)???

>What the hell is Liberal censorship anyway?  No one's ever explained to
>me why so many people judge a person to be either "liberal" or "conservative".
>What's the deal here?  Are people simply binary?

I'm not so concerned about labels.  I get the impression, though, that
lots of pro-choicers think of themselves as liberals, and that's germane
to the point Simon is making here.  He has the impression that self-styled
"liberals" are trying to harass him off the net, and if this is the case,
there is a large measure of hypocrisy involved in this.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion