From: No name given (vampier@mac.com)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 07:51:46 MST
On Friday, March 1, 2002, at 05:34 AM, Richard Ridge wrote:
>> So far I'm not incredibly impressed.
>
> Given that you seems to me to have made up your mind on all topics
> prior to
> arrival, I cannot claim to be surprised by that. You appear to be
> demanding
> an absolute standard of ethics that determine every single aspect of
> your
> life. I would contend that other than a minimal set of virtues and
> vices,
> this is something that virus will actively refuse to provide.
Goodbye.
I'm unsubscribing after replying to this - so please send any reply that
you wish to send me directly
(vampier@mac.com).
> Having started
> from that desire there is little anyone could say to persuade you
> otherwise.
> Given that, it is entirely inevitable that discussions of this kind
> will run
> around in circles - it seems a bit unreasonable for you to blame us for
> not
> supplying you with want to hear.
Be open to the possibility. Pursuing pipe-dreams is what makes progress
happen.
>> I will admit that I was a bit put-off by Kant as what I read of him
>> seemed like an unwieldy edifice of notions. As you have asked me for a
>> summary, I ask you now for one.
>
> http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi023/kantLEC.HTM
Thanks.
>> I have. But I'll hesitate to put us on a tangent.
>
> Do elaborate. I will be very surprised if the argument does not have a
> religious origin. Prohibitions of that sort cannot possibly be
> reversible or
> universal.
Arguments:
1) Sex exists for reproduction. Failure to use things for their intended
purpose is an abnormality.
2) Sexual activities that do not result in reproduction are a waste of
energy for the species,
as they do not allow the population size to grow, and
therefore do not enable
the rate of evolution to be as fast, and therefore hold the
species back in it's development.
3) While people have a right to do things as they wish privately, no one
has a right to encourage
behavior that uses things for unintended purposes with no
demonstratable advantage over
the use of them for intended purposes, and likewise no one has
a right to encourage behavior
that holds the genetic evolution of the species back from it's
full potential.
>> No, but they take more of my money.
>
> Consider the church throughout history and the tithes that went to it,
> consider the selling of indulgences. The CofE and the Catholic Church
> remain
> very wealthy institutions.
Money given willingly (to a church) seems less than money given out of
necessity (to a lawyer) even if it be more.
Certainly for many people I know, a single incident with a lawyer (say,
a divorce) costs more than they ever gave to the church.
>> We need some form of population control.
>
> Are you attempting to suggest to me that burning witches or massacring
> the
> cathars were a welcome means of population control?
"welcome"? No. Natural, yes.
> If so, I would have to
> suggest that you need to research the subject of contraception. And that
> you're probably off your rocker.
The people smart enough to engage in contraception are the ones whose
genes we'd like to increase (which doesn't happen if there is
contraception).
The people stupid enough to be on the losing side of a war are the ones
whose genes we ought to get rid of (which doesn't happen if we don't use
war as a form of population control).
Granted there are some unfortunate times when other circumstances cause
the above generalization to be obviously shown to be a generalization -
but the loss to genetic benefit for the population is probably no more
than that of a natural disaster.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT