HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Mikhail on the theory that sex is icky
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:24:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec11.142404.18403
 <1992Dec9.164731.18319@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Dec10.144451.9205@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec10.144451.9205@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.164731.18319@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>In the meantime, I propose that you stop your attempts to stifle my,
>>or anyone else's, free thought.

GWS:
>If you could be bothered to think, you would notice that I have not
>attempted to stifle your, or anyone else's, free thought.  I have been
>trying to get you to think, instead of spouting bullshit.  I have in
>particular been attempting to get you to think about the fact that
>some of the things you like to do are morally wrong.  This wrongness
>is not the sort only discoverable n terms of obsolete metaphysical
>categories qnd outright scientific errors, but quite explicitly in
>terms of people's head's being pounded into the pavement.

I promise to retract my claims, the moment you demonstrate that they
contain "outright scientific errors".  Please note that repeatedly
shooting off your profligate gob at anything your idiotic presumption
compels you to regard as an error, does not amount to a demonstration;
nor does your claim of obsolescence of my metaphysical categories
confirm anything other than your philosophical ignorance.  As for your
tired and tiresome "terms of people's head's being pounded into the
pavement", I already expressed my opinion on the subject in the parts
you so coyly elided.

Kindly attempt to contain your self-righteous blather.  No one is
immune to moral judgment in virtue of his actions.  I do not judge you
for what you are; rather, I judge your self-professed actions for what
they are.  If you are unhappy about it, see a psychiatrist.

>-- 
>     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
>               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:32:36 GMT

(Rec.arts.books has been removed from followups.)

In article <1992Dec16.152321.18570@husc3.harvard.edu>
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes on why oral sex
between a man and a woman is not as morally bereft as same-gender sex:

>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.

So, in fact, the position to which they switch is in fact morally good
under your paradigm.  And if the partners do not switch before climax?
Do you continue to defend heterosexual sodomy on the basis that they
*could* have switched to a reproductive position, or do you apply your
venom equally to those who spit and those who swallow?  Or those who
masturbate, for that matter?

I eagerly await Mickey's version of "I won't come in your mouth."

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
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 reproduction
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:17:03 GMT

Bill Anderson (libwca@emory.edu) wrote:
> You people ever talk about, oh, books?  Anything like that?   
> 
> Bill   
	Um..I'm posting from "alt.politics.homosexuality"  If this is being
directed onto some newsgroup about books, don't blame me. I can't understand
why in the world it would be.

							-Skippy
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: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:19:38 GMT

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

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

							Lard & Fishes,
								Skipp
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:05:12 GMT

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:
|> 
|> >	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

Sorry.  No G.I. Joes.  That potentially productive venue can actually be a 
potentially destructive venue.  If the male/female couple has already had
2 children, having another would be a deadly contribution to the world's
population.  Or don't you understand the exponential function yet?

Rod

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: callahan@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:02:39 GMT

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:
>> 
>> >	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
>> 
>> 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.

>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.

Harvard keeps Zeleny around so English students can better understand Eliot's
"Prufrock."  Who else could provide such a concrete image for the phrase
"a tedious argument, of insidious intent"?

--
Paul Callahan
callahan@cs.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: FREE WILL 2: Neither a Determinist nor an Indeterminist be.
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:08:22 GMT

In article <spurrett.91.724001302@superbowl.und.ac.za> spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.222124.15941@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>
>>There may be more than one possible future for the weather to follow,
>>and that still will not make it free.
>
>Indeed it would not make it free, although if it _really_ had more than
>one possible future then it would not be deterministic, and if it was
>deterministic then it would have only _one_ future - its actual future with
>there being no room for possibility.
>
>When it comes to choices I maintain that you call `absolute' free will is a
>useful approach to the question _if_ we choose between multiple real futures,
>then _how_ does this happen?
>o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
>| David Spurrett, Department of Philosophy |  `I have seen the truth, and |
>| University of Natal, Durban              |   it makes no sense.'        |
>| email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za      |              - OFFICIAL!     |
>o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o

We do not in fact choose between multiple real (complete) futures; we
choose among incompletely defined futures compatible with our
incomplete state of knowledge.  We may attempt to choose a future
which is impossible even under the rosiest assumptions of free will.
Even in a deterministic universe, there are multiple possible futures
relative to our state of knowledge, even when we know that the
universe obeys deterministic laws.  One way of thinking of this is
that we do not actually know what complete world we are in to begin
with, so we cannot tell which future we will end up in, since we do
not know what present we are in.  But I am not assuming determinism;
simply observe that there is no reason to believe that we choose
between multiple completely realized futures from observation of what
we actually do.


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:11:32 GMT

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:
>
>>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.

In that fellatio is not conceivably reproductive, or in that Mickey
wouldn't reject such an offer?  You've just told us either something
extremely profound about the human reproductive system, or something
extremely revealing about your nighttime escapades with Mike.

I'm sorry to hear about it, Erin.  Perhaps if you could do something
about Mikey's position on sodomy, our tongues would finally get a rest
and yours would finally get a workout.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3008 rec.arts.books:22633 alt.politics.homosexuality:8091
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:43:48 GMT

Followups redirected not out of rec.arts.books, since Mickey'll only
redirect them back.  My apology on his behalf to rec.arts.books
readers who are putting up with this whole, long, ridiculous thread.

In article <1992Dec17.033855.18603@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>In article <92351.223842HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> 
>HERSCH@auvm.american.edu (Herschel Browne) writes:
>
>>This is the
>>"cunt nearby" argument. Even though *this* coupling is absolutely
>>sterile, it is not *essentially* sterile, since there is a cunt
>>nearby.
>
>No, Mr H, this is not the "cunt nearby" argument.

Whatever this argument is called, would you like to address it?  Your
decision to focus only on his chosen description speaks volumes for
what it does to your so-called rhetoric.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:21:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.213330.18648@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>The hypothesis that the *moral* end of
>human sexiality is reproduction, is confirmed by exhaustion of
>alternatives, -- what else could it be?

From your standpoint (which as we know is disconnected from the
social, physical, and legal world), probably nothing.  I can easily
believe that you have chosen particular definitions of "moral",
"sexuality", and "reproduction" that leave you unable to reach any
other conclusion than the one you state above.  Especially since
you've spent years gathering philosophical tidbits specifically to
support this argument, scattering said tidbits at random under the
impression we will be deceived into thinking there's actually a
coherent structure of thought there somewhere.

The first rule of debate is to define your terms.  You do so inter-
minably, and have already established that your definitions assume
your uniquely abstracted standpoint, from which possible
reproductiveness (in some not-too-far-from-this-universe universe) is
the moral basis for sex of any kind.  These definitions do not match
mine, nor those of most of our audience, I suspect.

For me, sexual acts are good if they enhance the emotional, physical,
and spiritual well-being of all the participants.  No doubt this
assertion is far too vague--i.e. far too concrete and close to the
real world--to be acceptable to you.  Fortunately, it doesn't matter
whether it is acceptable to you.  I know I will not convince you of
anything; I'm concerned about the real world, from which you are
manifestly separating yourself.

-- 
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reprodictiveness
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:20:02 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>There are women who are genetically XY [ . . . ] it is only in the last
>40-odd years or so that these young ladies have stopped being
>considered "women" by certain groups (for example, the International
>Olympic Committee.)

How did this become an issue for the Olympic Committee if this is such
a rare disorder?  Do these people tend to outperform the general run of
women?  (I thought I would ask since I was curious and relevance to
books seems not to be an issue.)

-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur."  (Cato)
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3010 rec.arts.books:22638 alt.politics.homosexuality:8095
From: lbn@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (generic fellow)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Mikhail on the theory that cruelty is useful
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:52:42 EST
Distribution: rec,talk
Organization: Cornell University

Mikhail Zeleny:
>>>I told you I was serious, Mike.  Suppose you were to tell me what you
>>>find immoral about cruelty?  For instance, I heartily enjoy the petty
>>>torment of those who believe in their right not to be denigrated, and,
>>>I suspect, so do you.  Unlike neighborly love (on which see Freud),
>>>neighborly cruelty is readily found in a copious, undiluted supply.
>>>Why not put it to good use by making it into a moral force?

dave liebman:
>>freud's credibility is diminished by the fact of his having been a sucker
>>of his own cock, and not even a closeted one -- he had it published.

MZ:
>A banal metaphor adds no merit to a _non sequitur_.

surely a banal commentary is similarly bereft of value?


>>and neighborly cruelty is ever _so_ petty, the inevitable product of
>>this bourgeois stultification you've mentioned.  those who assert that
>>cruelty is an essential, substantive aspect of human existence do so,
>>of course, to satisfy their plaintive need to legitimize their own
>>blunted variant of humanity.

>Why "of course"?  Is your own credibility to be regarded as inherently
>superior to the sort you accord to that alleged autofellator Siggy?

in the absence of any slightly more than half-witted remonstrance, i'd
probably win by default.


dl:
>>                             cruelty need not be immoral.  its morality,
>>though, will be of the opiate, provincial sort most suited to those who
>>will dully climb whatever ladder is placed before them.  that banal 
>>frustration, those pastel fantasies of kicking the neighbor's poodle in 
>>the ribs, are nothing but dilute.  the deployment of such inclinations in 
>>a moral domain is nothing more than some suburban milquetoast playing 
>>overly sweaty racquetball at the YMCA.  their bodies grow leaner, but 
>>later that evening are found firmly embedded in their plastic-draped 
>>couches; as, i suspect, is yours.

MZ:
>My leather-covered couch is duly draped with last week's laundry and
>this week's reading.  You are losing your thread again, dave.

you're so adorable when you get petulant.


snuggles,
dave
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: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:40:35 GMT

	What does my pal Mikhail have to say about oral sex between us
breeders? That's not reproductive in any possible world, but I can't imagine
him objecting to some woman offering him a blow job...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.

	But then again, maybe I'm just being rude.

				-jesse "I'm not defined by my dick" fuchs
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
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 02:57:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec16.215746.18586
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec16.225842.23475@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) 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 - 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.

TF:
>So therefore, a three-way relationship of two men and a woman would be
>acceptable.  The two men could have sex while the woman watches TV in the
>next room, because at any time before the climax, they could switch to a
>potentially productive venue within their union.  Sounds good to me.

I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
allow for a change of partners *within* the same act.  See my
discussion with Mike Morris for more details.

>--
>Tim Fogarty
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
>FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3045 rec.arts.books:22866 alt.politics.homosexuality:8238