From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes posssible 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 08:33:48 GMT

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec16.212451.25986@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
> 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:
> 
> 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> ECL:
> >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.
> 
> Why stop at weeping?  Immediate suicide would constitute the only
> adequate expression for your grief.
> 
> ECL:
> >Even if one grants the premise that a potentially productive union is
> >some alternate world is necessary for certain configurations to be
> >approved--and a more ludicrous premise
> 
> The difference between a premiss and a derived principle is normally
> covered in an introductory logic course.
	I hate to be the one to break it to you, Mickey, but there are no
prequisites or course requirements to being on the net. Not all of us have the
time nor inclination to take a logic course - personally, I think it would be
fun and useful, but I simply have too many other things to take. If you can't
explain the difference using precise, clear English, don't even bother to 
bring it up.
> 
> ECL:
> >					 I haven't seen in a long
> >time--I have no problem seeing that two women or two men could have a
> >potentially productive union in *some* world.  (Maybe it's my science
> >fiction background.)  Therefore, by your "reasoning," their union
> >should be okay.  If you can't envision such a world, that, my friend,
> >is *your* problem, not mine.
> 
> Ditto for the difference between the possible and the conceivable.
	I make this point in another post, but what the heck, I'll make it 
again, in a slightly different fashion. A completely, genetically barren
woman (perhaps one with XY chromosomes, for instance, who didn't get enough
testosterone in the womb - it's rare, but it happens) suddenly becoming 
fertile is impossible. Certainly conceivable (no pun intended,) but not
possible. 
> 
> >Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
> >--
> >"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
> >"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
> 
> cordially,
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> 
  perkily,
  jesse fuchs@unix.amherst.edu
  "Donde esta el concerto Menudo?
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality