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 08:38:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec17.033855.18603
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <92351.223842HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> 
HERSCH@auvm.american.edu (Herschel Browne) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.152321.18570@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) says:

>>In article <BzCIMK.AK3@unix.amherst.edu>
>>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.

HB:
>And what you have to bear in mind here is that this stupid bullshit
>counts as "philosophy". There may be a single soul out there who
>doesn't think this is stupid, but surely only one. This is the
>"cunt nearby" argument. Even though *this* coupling is absolutely
>sterile, it is not *essentially* sterile, since there is a cunt
>nearby. And even if, say, the female in this coupling is utterly
>sterile, the coupling itself is not itself *essentially* sterile,
>since heterosexual couplings are *essentially* generative, even
>when in the specific case utterly sterile. I think this is called
>"Platonism"...it sure does sound smart, doesn't it? I wish this
>would work in my job. "Sure, boss, I know that the operating
>system doesn't work, but that's accidental rather than essential.
>MVS is *essentially* operational, and the fact that it's now
>totally hosed is only an accident, so it doesn't count."

No, Mr H, this is not the "cunt nearby" argument.  The "cunt nearby"
argument is the fallacious claim that it is all right for a man to have
sex with anything, as long as he is you, or else there is a foul-mouthed
blowhard imbecile like yourself around, who certifies the activity as
genuinely progressive, in light of the Whig interpretation of history.

HB:
>Utterly, utterly, utterly stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Repeat after
>me, *STUPID*. This shit is fucking dumb. Dumb. Stupid. Dumb.
>And everybody knows it except the stupid MZ himself, who thinks
>he's clever. He isn't.

Is something bothering you?  Then repeat this mantra: "There are no
absolutes of any sort; consequently there is no such thing as truth,
justice, or beauty; most importantly, there is no such thing as human
nature.  Therefore, none of my favorite proclivities could conceivably
be motivated by my resentful abomination of truth, justice, and beauty;
nor could they constitute a perversion of my true nature.  I am a
paragon of harmony, integrity, and composure.  It is my sincere wish
that the rest of the world would recognize my peerless merits, and come
to think and act in the same way I do."

As a disciple of Stirner, you ought to be happy with this credo.

>H.
>
>Herschel Browne
>"The" American University

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc