From: asar.196@wpi.wpi.edu (Prisoner)
Subject: Re: Messages for lots of folks.
Organization: Not the Anonymous Posting Service @ WPI
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:37:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.160431.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>
	holzman@fnalo.fnal.gov writes:
> In article <1992Apr2.213453.8780@wpi.wpi.edu>, asar.196@wpi.wpi.edu (Prisoner)
>                                                          I might have called
> the police on the person grabbing me, or sued the company for my wages, but I
> don't know your particular situation.  There may well have been something
> preventing either of those actions.

Most of the abuse I suffered as a child was at the hands of
government functionaries or caused by them; the police were
NOT my friends, they were among my tormenters. As for suing
the company, what company? The people who withheld my
earnings were my friends!

> >>   On the issue of religion, I would point out that not all religions, for
> >> that matter not all sects of Christianity, require or even desire its
> >> adherents to give up their autonomy.
> >
> > Um. Depends on what you mean by "require". If you mean
> > "insist" then you are right. But if you mean "entail" then
> > I disagree. If that's too brief to explain what I think (as
> > opposed to why I think so), I'll go into more detail.

> I would be interested both in a more detailed description of what you think and
> why you think it.

What: religions have two characteristics, though they
emphasize them to different degrees. One is a belief in
something beyond the knowable, something which is real,
important, and intrinsically beyond human understanding. The
other is that they base their moralities on that unknowable.

Why: those two characteristics are incompatible with mental
health in a human being. Autonomy is an essential to mental
health. The first compromises intellectual autonomy by
asserting the unknowability of the essentials of reality.
That, and the second characteristic, undercuts moral
autonomy, first by moving the source of moral authority out
of the individual, and second, by negating the possibility
of moral knowledge.

Sorry if I'm being too brief, but to really discuss this
would require my setting up the framework from which in I
think, and that's going to take a lot longer. (Though I am
working on it and may have something to post, shortly.)

> > I may not have made this clear: his censorship powers extend
> > only to the anonymous posting service. I really don't have
> > any problem with him censoring what his service posts; it
> > is, after all, HIS service and HIS responsibility.

> I do have a problem with this.  First, because I really don't like censorship.

Ah, but there's censorship and censorship. In fact, what he
did was not in any significant sense censorship. The thing
that makes censorship wrong is not that someone refuses to
publish an idea but that someone PREVENTS the publishing of
an idea. What he did was not censorship, in the immoral
sense, because he didn't stop me from posting, merely
refused me his particular way of posting. If, on the other
hand, he had taken to a policy of cancelling my messages
because of what I had to say, that would have been
censorship. Let me add: that what he did wasn't censorship
does not make it right!

> Second because I don't like the thought that someone really needing help
> couldn't because asar-admin decided that their post was "not appropriate."

That, I absolutely agree with. Moreoever, I disagree with
his assessment. If I read the charter correctly, the purpose
of this newsgroup is the discussion of issues relating to
recovery from sexual abuse. Such discussion can't be
meaningful unless there is a willingness to tackle the hard
issues, the fundamental issues, and especially, the
unpopular and unpleasant issues. The mere fact that said
discussions may be distressing to some isn't an adequate
justification for attempting to suppress it.

>                                                I am willing to believe that it
> hasn't happened, because noone else has coomplained about it, then again, I am
> also willing to believe that someone had to leave the list because they
> couldn't post anonymously, were to afraid to use their real account, and not
> techniclty adept enough to post from port 25.

We'll never know, will we?


APS-Name: Prisoner
ap.3029@layout.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery