On Wed, 15 May 1996 ccw94@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Quetzil notes
>
>
> >regarding clitorectomy & related, i certainly am too ignorant of specific
> >practices that are SO HIGHLY/HOTLY CONTESTED to say I am universally opposed
> >or unequivocally in favor. likewise with adult/child sex.
>
> Well, one can see the foundational fallacy at work here. Quetzil doesn't
> feel able to say anything about some practices because he doesn't "KNOW"
> enough about them (actually quetzil said he was too ignorant about them, but
> I will ask a little intellectual room within which to move). But how is the
> term "know" being used here? Is Quetzil saying that in order to act he must
> "know" everything there is to know about a particular situation? Presumably,
> if this is the case he never gets out of bed, in fact, even geting into bed
> must be problematic. But even if I accept the arguments that seem to have
> gone nowhere and accept that discourses are reality, I, and Quetzil, still
> have to act in this world, and we must do so without "perfect knowledge".
It's possible to hold that you don't know enough about certain
specific issues to have an overall position on them, without holding
that perfect knowledge is necessary for any action at all.
> The problem comes when Quetzil forgets that even inaction is a form of
> action. Consider the following:
> >
> >and this noncommittment is not a default in favor or default against. it is
> >a position that seeks to understand the sociohistorical specifics and
> >particularities -- call it historical particularism and cultural relativism
> >if you want, but its not "a default" pro position.
>
> But of course it is a default position. If such practices (and I am making
> no claims to be for or against them here) exist and if one lets them exist,
> then one has let them exist. One does not get off the moral hook by saying I
> don't know enough about them.
This is a default position (in terms of action) but it isn't a 'pro'
position. Such a position would involve, for example, campaigning for
legal recognition of adult-child sexual relationships. Most people have a
default 'indifference' position in terms of action for 99% of the issues
around. How could it be otherwise?
Dave Hugh-Jones So what's it all about Alfie? Have you ever seen the
dash2@xxxxxxxxx moon? It's a little whitish bluish thing that floats
about the sky. It's very very round and "they" say
that man invented the wheel.
Homeless person, 1995
> Quetzil notes
>
>
> >regarding clitorectomy & related, i certainly am too ignorant of specific
> >practices that are SO HIGHLY/HOTLY CONTESTED to say I am universally opposed
> >or unequivocally in favor. likewise with adult/child sex.
>
> Well, one can see the foundational fallacy at work here. Quetzil doesn't
> feel able to say anything about some practices because he doesn't "KNOW"
> enough about them (actually quetzil said he was too ignorant about them, but
> I will ask a little intellectual room within which to move). But how is the
> term "know" being used here? Is Quetzil saying that in order to act he must
> "know" everything there is to know about a particular situation? Presumably,
> if this is the case he never gets out of bed, in fact, even geting into bed
> must be problematic. But even if I accept the arguments that seem to have
> gone nowhere and accept that discourses are reality, I, and Quetzil, still
> have to act in this world, and we must do so without "perfect knowledge".
It's possible to hold that you don't know enough about certain
specific issues to have an overall position on them, without holding
that perfect knowledge is necessary for any action at all.
> The problem comes when Quetzil forgets that even inaction is a form of
> action. Consider the following:
> >
> >and this noncommittment is not a default in favor or default against. it is
> >a position that seeks to understand the sociohistorical specifics and
> >particularities -- call it historical particularism and cultural relativism
> >if you want, but its not "a default" pro position.
>
> But of course it is a default position. If such practices (and I am making
> no claims to be for or against them here) exist and if one lets them exist,
> then one has let them exist. One does not get off the moral hook by saying I
> don't know enough about them.
This is a default position (in terms of action) but it isn't a 'pro'
position. Such a position would involve, for example, campaigning for
legal recognition of adult-child sexual relationships. Most people have a
default 'indifference' position in terms of action for 99% of the issues
around. How could it be otherwise?
Dave Hugh-Jones So what's it all about Alfie? Have you ever seen the
dash2@xxxxxxxxx moon? It's a little whitish bluish thing that floats
about the sky. It's very very round and "they" say
that man invented the wheel.
Homeless person, 1995