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 17:04:04 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <BzE9Aq.5vw@unix.amherst.edu> 
jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:

>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu) wrote:

>>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.

MZ:
>>Possibility is more inclusive than its actualization.

JMF:
>	This is a very, very weird argument, but I will give you points for 
>arguing it well. However, in the real world, why is possibility more 
>inclusive? In both cases, there just ain't going to be any "sex," so why 
>should it matter to anyone not merely treading in their own intellectual
>waters?

In fact, "the real world" gets very, very weird, if only the actual
events are considered as making the basis for its description.  For
instance, lacking access to the facts of the subject matter, there
would be nothing in the actual world to allow you to favor in any way
a consistent truth-teller over a consistent liar.  This is not just an
epistemological issue, wherein only the evidence would be lacking, but
a metaphysical one, wherein the lack of evidence would entail the lack
of facts of the matter.

In other words, counterfactual reasoning can tell you more about the
intrinsic nature of things, as opposed to the way they happen to be.

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.

MZ:
>>Skippy, if you need me to tell you what's wrong with this picture, you
>>have no chance of getting it straight anyway.

JMF:
>	I'm pretty sure that what you mean by "what's wrong with this picture"
>is not the fact that these women won't have sex. But what is your definition
>of the realm of possibility? The chances of a barren woman suddenly becoming
>fertile during sex is about equal to the odds of a gay man suddenly growing
>a womb and being able to bear children with semen entering through his mouth. 
>True, in some possible world, this woman could be feritle - but in some 
>possible world, we could also impregnate aardvarks. Does this make 
>bestiality okay with you?

That's just the thing, Skippy, -- the chances are *not* the same, in
light of what we know about the nature of sexuality.  I will admit
that this modal theory is a weird thing, -- it has taken me several
years to accept it as meaningful, and in my own work, I still like to
investigate even more arcane alternatives.  But it does what it is
supposed to do, i.e. illuminate its subject matter.

>>>>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...

MZ:
>>No deadbeat is a relative of mine.

JMF:
>	But in some possible world, I could be. And wouldn't that just be a
>thrill for both of us.

But the genotype is an essential property of our bodies, Skippy.
Either we are relatives, or it is impossible for us to be related by
blood.  Since in the actual world, as a matter of empirical fact, no
deadbeat is a relative of mine, and since you are a _bona fide_
deadbeat, it is impossible for us to be related.  Q.E.D.

>>>							Lard & Fishes,
>>>								Skipp

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

>					More fun than lots of things, up to but
>					not including reruns of "Cheers,"
 
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