NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12830

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 18.4 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12830 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11272 alt.politics.clinton:19484 alt.politics.bush:15381 alt.politics.homosexuality:8825
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!wingnut!philipla
From: [e-mail] (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 03 Jan 93 00:35:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 437

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>[e-mail] (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>
>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning?
>
>>    Not all secular reasoning is.  Some of it is simply
>>anti-religious reasoning masquerading as secular.  In the general
>>case, though, secular reasoning will have a foundation in
>>fact that religious reasoning never can.
>
>Beg pardon, but the deconstructionists here are laughing uncontrollably.
>What, pray tell, is a "fact"?  You simply show that you are a follower of
>a very popular Western religion, called "science".  Godel demonstrated
>the impossibility of logically verifying the validity of *ANY* logical
>system, and empirical evidence from physics is supporting that demonstration.

    Wait - "empirical evidence"?  That's all I was talking about.

    If you want to discuss the nature of reality, do it with someone
else.  I've found such discussions to be fairly boring.


>In other words, science and secular logic has demonstrated that science
>and secular logic is no more or less supportable than any other culturally-
>based form of thought.

    What about that "empirical evidence"?  Where's the empirical
evidence to back up religious reasoning?


>>>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
>>>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
>>>right to divorce their parents.
>
>>    Can you document this?  I haven't heard anything of the sort.
>
>The case of the 11-year old in Florida divorcing his parents within the last
>two months comes to mind.

    You are either ignorant of this case or are intentionally distorting
it.  I suggest going to a library and learning something about it.


>  Hillary pulbished an article in a law journal
>at the beginnning of the last decade advocating precisely this use of the
>law.

    Reference, please.


>  It was in all the papers.  I have no idea how you could have missed it.

    I didn't.  I did, unfortunately, read the whole article and not
just the headline.


>>>Similarly, if a 9,10,11,or 12-year old can divorce hs/her parents because
>>>of their maturity, then why can't those same mature individuals move in
>>>with a 30-year old same sex lover?  If they're mature enough to unchoose
>>>parents, they are certainly mature enough to choose who they want to live
>>>with.  The National Man-Boy Love Association would certainly support that
>>>reasoning.  Why can anyone, secularly, object to pedophilia if the child
>>>doesn't object?  Or if the "child" no longer exists, legally, because that
>>>child has been ruled an adult by the courts?
>
>>     There is a basic question of whether or not a child is
>>capable of giving informed consent for sex.  Currently we have
>>age of consent laws - these are terminally flawed, in that not
>>all children happen to mature at the same rate.  But they're
>>the best method we have right now.  Besides NAMBLA, I haven't
>>seen anyone clamoring for the repeal of those laws.
>>      So, basically, please document where you've seen this
>>line of "secular reasoning".
>
>Pardon me, but given Hillary's premises, it is a logically sound,
>internally consistent argument which makes no reference to religious
>dogma and is based upon premises which make no reference to religious
>dogma, therefore it is "secular reasoning".

    In the case you cite above, the child did _not_ gain "the same
legal rights as adults".  Therefore, this conclusion is meaningless.


>>>Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning?  With so many diverse forms of
>>>birth control, including genetic testing and legal abortion, it's not like
>>>biological reasons could possibly hold water anymore.  As long as both
>>>parties agree, where's the harm?
>
>>    Where is the harm?  Can you demonstrate that there is any harm
>>at all if both parties agree?
>
>Thank you.  I thought you'd bite.

    You didn't answer my questions.


>>>Secular reasoning has found that no human being exists at conception, that
>>>women have the right to do with that non-viable tissue what they want,
>>>unilaterally, because men have no right to interfere.  Fine.  Then secular
>>>reasoning also makes it clear that men are not and can never be parents,
>>>since they never create children.
>
>>     I fail to see how you derive this conclusion from your premise.
>>Can you trace your train of logic?
>
>A decision to have sex is not a decision to have children.
>If a woman decides to have sex, she is not deciding to have children.
>If a man decides to have sex, he is not deciding to have children.

    A decision to have sex acknowledges the possibility of conception.
(I'll assume for simplicity's sake that we're only talking about
heterosexual vaginal sex.)


>No human being exists at conception.
>Sex results in conception.
>Sex results in the existence of no human being.
>
>Birth is the event which creates a new human being.
>Men never give birth.
>Men never take part in the creation of a new human being.

    No.  You've proven that men don't give birth, nothing else.
There isn't a single event that creates a human being.


>You fall prey to "religiously-based" reasoning when you think of
>sex/conception as having anything to do with the creation of people.
>That is an archaic concept, based on out-of-date cultural standards.

     Huh?  Justify this statement.


>Women supply 100% of the labor, provide the location and machinery for
>manufacture, and provide 99.99% of the raw material necessary for
>the creation of a human being.

    True.


>  If no human being exists at conception,
>and no human being exists at conception + X weeks, while a human being
>does exist at conception + X weeks + Y weeks, then obviously only
>the one(s) who contributed to that formation at conception + X + Y are
>responsible for the existence of a human being.

    This doesn't follow.  You can't reach conception + X + Y without
going through conception.  Or are you suggesting that women can skip
conception altogether and jump right to the birth?


>  Remember, at any point
>before conception + X + Y, the results can be ripped up and tossed out
>unilaterally by the manufacturer.

     By one of the manufacturers.


>  Men are legally forbidden to have any
>influence whatsoever on the manufacturer's decision.

     This is a crock.  Men can have all kinds of influence on that
decision.  But the final decision is not made my the man.


>  Why are they held
>to be responsible for manufacturing they did not start, decisions they
>are not allowed to make, and a result they did not have any part in?

    "Manufacturing they did not start"?  What happened, parthenogenesis?
I'll say it again - without a man somewhere in the process, you
don't get children.


>>>  At most, men supply only raw material -
>>>it is the woman who chooses to manufacture a child.
>>    No, the woman chooses to carry the fetus to term, but she
>>still can't "manufacture" that child without a man somewhere in
>>the process.
>
>And Chrysler can't make a car without raw material from U.S. Steel.
>Big deal.  As long as the raw material is of good quality, I fail to
>see how U.S. Steel is responsible for Chrysler's cars.  Do they get part
>of the profit?  Are they forced to pay for Chrysler's excess inventory?
>No.  They supply raw material.  If Chrysler didn't want it, they could
>dump it.  They don't have to accept delivery, and the woman can take
>"morning-after" contraceptives to reject delivery, or abortion, or
>anything else she wants to do.  If she decides to *ACCEPT* delivery,
>however, that's entirely her *UNILATERAL* decision, and her
>responsibility alone, if you want to use "secular reasoning".

     I'm not following your argument here.  Is it that men are
not part of the birth process (they clearly are, even in your
analogy), or that men should never be held financially responsible
for the results of their actions?


>>>  If a woman can decide
>>>to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her decision
>>>to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons,
>
>>     Nope.  You did it again - your conclusion doesn't follow.
>>If a woman can decide to have an abortion for purely personal
>>economic reasons, then her decision to have a child _can_ also
>>be based on purely personal economic reasons.  Not "must".
>
>But in either case, it has absolutely nothing to do with the man.  If she
>wishes to make decisions based on the phase of Venus, fine.  But the man
>is legally forbidden any part in the decision to manufacture a child, he
>has no responsibility for her decision since he has no part in it.  He
>didn't create a child by the act of having sex.  She didn't create a child
>by the act of having sex.  Neither created a child at conception.  ONly
>*SHE* creates a child, by choosing to carry to term. When a woman aborts,
>she does so for her own reasons based on her own estimates of her personal
>situation.  If she carries to term, she must also do so for her own reasons
>based on her own estimates of her personal situation.

    Oh, I see what you're trying to get at now.  Since the child
didn't exist at the time of conception, the man did not create the
child.  If the child did come into existence some time after,
the man had nothing to do with it.
    You don't find this to be silly reasoning?


>The idea that the man has anything to do with it is based on several old
>"religious" concepts, i.e. sex involves commitment to another person,
>sex creates children, etc.  Secular reasoning has demonstrated that sex
>exists purely for pleasure, that it does not create children (only
>prolonged gestation followed by birth creates children).  Men used to be
>held responsible for taking care of women and children, but secular
>reasoning shows that women need men like fish need bicycles.  The idea of
>dual parents is archaic as well - single parent families are normal, we
>are told.  Is it any wonder that many men accept secular reasoning?

     So you're just being arbitrary.  Are you arguing this just
to see your own beautiful words on the screen, or are you going
to attempt to make sense?
     The only person I've ever seen or heard express ideas like
the ones you present above is you.


>>> and
>>>there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out
>>>of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic
>>>future.
>
>>    I'm tending to agree with you on this one.  Paternity laws
>>need revamping badly.
>
>He bites again.

    Bites what?  Do you have no further commentary?


>>>  According to secular reasoning, genetic comparisons are pointless,
>>>since a man's twin bears the same genetic relationship to the child, yet
>>>isn't legally bound to support the child manufactured via the use of his
>>>brother's sperm.
>
>>    I don't follow the point of this one at all.
>
>The point is that proving paternity by genetic testing misses the point.
>There can be no paternity if there is no father - existing laws on
>abortion demonstrate quite clearly that the concept of "father" is
>logically insupportable.

    Only in your own mind.


>[more of the same deleted]
>
>>>Do you think this reasoning is crazy?  It's coming to court in New York
>>>this very month.  And Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW, is on
>>>record as supporting this reasoning.
>
>>    Supporting which reasoning?  What you've written above is
>>muddled enough as to be almost unfollowable.
>
>Ah, you are still trapped in religiously-based cultural concepts about
>sex and children.  You must free yourself of these old icons, and move
>forward to accept the new secular reasoning on sex, children, and family.

    And once again you don't answer the question.


>>>What about infibulation, the practice of mutilating female genitalia
>>>that is common in Africa?  Secularly speaking, we have no right to
>>>condemn another culture's practices.  As long as their society finds
>>>it acceptable, how can we western Europeans dare to impose OUR moral
>>>inhibitions on a functioning society?

>>    Why should we impose "our" morals on another society?  Why
>>should we impose "our" morals on individuals within our society?
>
>So you support infibulation, as long as you're not the one doing it?

    As long as it's consensual.  I'm not sure that it is in the case
that you mention - if the act is being performed on children, then
I'm opposed to it.  I'm opposed to circumsizing babies, too.


>How about consensual cannibalism?  Should we free Jeffrey Dahmer if
>we could determine that his "victims" *WANTED* to be carved up and
>eaten?

     Absolutely.  Can you make any justification that any
consensual act should be illegal?


>  I take it necrophilia is always acceptable?

    Yup.  Just because something is icky doesn't mean it's immoral.


>>>You know, this society complains to high heaven about drunk drivers.
>>>We say they are suffering from an illness (alcoholism) but we punish
>>>them if they dare to be ill in the wrong place.
>
>>    That's an interesting way of putting it.  I look at it as follows:
>>A person can choose to drink - the can drink as much as they want,
>>and as often as they want.  When they decide to get behind the
>>wheel of a car, then they put _my_ life at risk by their actions.
>>That's where I draw the line.
>
>Ah, but the compulsion to drink is, by definition, not controllable.
>They can no more control their drinking than a homosexual can choose
>to be heterosexual.  The evidence linking alcoholism with genetics is
>at least as strong; in fact, it is quite a bit stronger.  You would
>deny these people the right to engage in normal, everyday activities
>simply because of their genetically-influenced lifestyles?  You, sir,
>are drunk-bashing.

    Not at all.  I'm not denying alcholics the "right" to drive - I'm
denying them the right to do so while intoxicated.  I would
similarly forbid blind people to drive.
   You may now accuse me to blind-bashing.


>   Sure, people go off on Colorado simply because it
>denies the right to _special_ treatment -

    I assume that you've been reading this newsgroup for more than
two days.  You therefore are well aware that the Colorado amendment
actually _grants_ special treatment - to heterosexuals.


> how would gays like to be
>a permanent underclass, looked down on and spit upon as they're genetic
>brethren, alcoholics, are?

    Heh.  You don't think they are already?


>>>  How many people have
>>>gone to jail for having the flu while driving?  What if they vomited
>>>and hit someone, whay aren't they jailed for DWI (driving while
>>>influenzaed)?
>>     That's very clever.  If you can produce research that
>>indicates that drivers with influenza are significantly more likely
>>to endanger other drivers, I'll support your drive to have a
>>ban enacted into law.
>>     See, this is where secular reasoning gets you.  You actually
>>have to show _reasons_ for your opinions.
>
>There are demonstrable _reasons_ for jailing sexually active AIDS
>carriers, so I suppose you support that?

    If their partners are not aware that their consent to sex
included consent to die, then yes, I support that action being
criminal.


>>>  Then why don't we jail the AIDS infected for condemning other
>>>people to death by being ill in the wrong place (while have sex)?
>
>>    Umm... This is happening right now.  People are being tried
>>for knowingly spreading AIDS.
>
>And you support it??????

    In some cases.  Surprised?


>>>Especially now that the AZT-resistant strains are obviously being spread
>>>by precisely these people?  According to secular reasoning, a drunk driver
>>>and a sexually active AIDS carrier are no different.
>
>>    This doesn't follow either.  A drunk driver is endangering others,
>>with no consent on their part.  The AIDS carrier is endangering others
>>also, if he or she is sexually active.  If the AIDS carrier does
>>so with full knowledge of his or her condition, and does not inform
>>his or her sexual partner, then I think you could make a good case
>>that they should be tried.
>
>FYI, according to the CDC, less than 20% of AIDS carriers who KNOW they
>have AIDS bother to inform their partners.  Oddly enough, if they have
>syphilis, the law *REQUIRES* them to inform their partners,  if they don't
>the state health agencies have a right to do so.  If they have AIDS,
>however, the law denies anyone the right to pass that knowledge on to
>people who may be put at risk.

    I'll repeat:  A person who has AIDS and knowingly has sexual
relations with another person without that person's knowledge of
the condition is committing a crime.


>  Similarly, it is legal to jail TB carriers
>in order to force them to undergo treatment for this  disease,
>but it isn't legal to do so for AIDS carriers.

    Reference to the TB law, please.


>>>  So, Evelyn, when
>>>are you going to support they jailing of AIDS-infected sexually active
>>>individuals?
>
>>      Sigh.  No logic involved here.  It all involves consent.
>
>And after you said there was.  Damn.  You'll jail alcoholics and people
>with influenza, but not people with AIDS.  Where's your secular logic?

    No, I explicitly said that I _wouldn't_ jail people with
influenza, even if they were driving, and I've said that I would
jail people with AIDS if they were knowingly spreading the disease.
Where's your reading comprehension?

    If this discussion is going to continue on this level, you
can expect me not to reply.  Your writing comes off as a Zeleny-
wannabe - I have better things to do than get involved in a
pissing-match with a self-aggrandizing pedant.

                -Phil
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara                         1 Microsoft Way
[e-mail]                Redmond, WA 98052-6399
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.