home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.bi
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!sa121
- From: sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
- Subject: Re: Odd passage from a book in 1937...
- Message-ID: <1993Jan21.183043.29563@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: hatley.cl.cam.ac.uk
- Reply-To: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk
- Organization: Glad to be Sad
- References: <1993Jan15.174038.24228@nwnexus.WA.COM> <1993Jan21.164214.1337@harlqn.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:30:43 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1993Jan21.164214.1337@harlqn.co.uk> daveb@harlqn.co.uk (Dave Berry) writes:
- >elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
- >> Who knows if the time will not also come one day, when the
- >> highest class of people will be ambisexual,
- >> - Dr. Johann Rutgers, 1937.
- >>
- >> Of course, Rutgers didn't get EVERYTHING terribly accurate.
- >
- >I don't think that even the quoted text is accurate, at least not literally.
- >We're not a "higher class of people" just because we're bisexual.
- >
- Given what else Elf says about Rutgers, I imagine the "highest" class
- would be precisely that -- a ruling caste. There's nothing to say
- whether ambisexuals would be present in the lower classes or not. It's
- the classic if P then Q =/=> if Q then P : All rulers are ambisexual,
- not all ambisexuals are rulers -- this isn't a claim to superiority
- *soley* on the basis of sexuality. Although, thinking about it, it is
- bi-supremacist, it isn't an automatic thing....
-
- (Spot who's been to too many AI and Logic lectures recently....)
-
- --
- \S
- SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk | "Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for
- ___ | some people it is a complete substitute for life."
- \X/ | -- Andrew Brown, The Independent
-