>*list. THATS WHY I'M HERE!!!!! Like I said before. If your dying of
>*thirst and you find water, you drink it you don't worship it, Nathan
>*doesn't understand this either! If I only listen and don't challenge,
>*everyone is just reciting and no one is learning anything new.
>It may be, that to some, you don't appear to be drinking so much as
>insisting "that's not water, it's just a mirage." In other words, issuing
>challenges without accepting them. Maybe that's not "true." But it does
>sometimes seem to be the case.
I see your point, but I am not quite sure how to rectify the situation.
This is the reason: I really am not quite sure of myself philosophically
and so I don't have a truly developed advocacy. I am still developing
thoughts on morality.
>For example... you've said that you believe
>homosexuality is immoral, but then claim that this belief isn't
>exclusionary. For some, such a claim doesn't hold water especially well.
Your right that was a claim I shouldn't have made. I didn't justify it
and it was pretty much an assertion. I either should have developed it
more or not said it at all. I developed the thesis while writing it so
I hoped it would get knocked around some so I could rethink it.
>(Oh, and it's "if you're dying of thirst," no offense, just a pet peeve,
>everyone I know has them.)
Will be more careful in the future :) I was aggitated when I wrote it.
> >I don't want to silence anyone. But this list can only survive if we
>don't
> >have people post 10 e-mails of nonsense per day, and this is something
>that
> >Bryan clearly either doesn't recognize or has too much pride to respect.
>*
>*Everyone I've talked with seems to think its a good thing that there
>*have been more conversations. Again Nathan reveals his revulsion at the
>*mere thought of being challenged and having to learn.
>*
> >Let's stop making people want to unsubscribe.
>
>*
>*There has been one person ask about that the entire time I've been on
>*the list, and I did a search. That guy had never posted before! He
>*just wasn't interested, I make him want to unsubscribe.
>*
>
>Not posting, I'll venture, doesn't mean that one isn't interested. I very,
>very, rarely post, but am quite intersted. But I think the point is that
>the
>use of homosexuality/homophobia as an exemplary case ignores the fact that
>it's inflamatory, ignores the fact that people, some of whom (however small
>the minority) subscribe to this list, are in situations that make it less
>than ideally suitable for 'detached' consideration. No one's really at all
>likely to beat you up for thinking that homosexuality is immoral, possible,
>but not something you have to be concerned about on a day to day basis.
>Perhaps something else could be found that would allow you to continue the
>learning process without so much consternation for those who are less
>interested in these specific issues regarding Foucault's work than you and
>some others are would be appropriate? It would certainly have the virtue of
>avoiding all the distractions from whatever the 'real' issues you're
>interested in are by averting opportunities for the name calling you say
>you
>aren't interested in.
First, that guy hadn't _ever_ posted, not once. I think perhaps he just
wasn't interested or didn't want that many emails.
I hadn't thought of a different topic, I was just responding to the
arguments previously made, but perhaps you have a good idea. Maybe we
could use a different topic to the same ends that wouldn't inspire
the irrational name calling bouts. This is probably a good idea.
>*
>*I can't help it if your a bigot. If your not here to learn then
>*god it go somewhere else! I don't know what the hell your problem is
>*that you had to bring a private matter like your fear of learning out
>*into the forum. Just make an argument or SHUT THE HELL UP!
>*
>
>Would it be at all useful to point out that your personal beliefs about the
>morality of homosexuality are private matters that any number of
>subscribers
>might not want to learn. Or that this doesn't sound very much like an
>argument? Probably not.
Your right, I appologize. But I wish someone had just called it that
way instead of insulting me.
>*
>*I'm sorry to all you who had to read this but Nathan has been pissing
>*me off alot lately and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
>*He brought it here, where it didn't belong, not me. I'll write back
>*to the thinking individuals on this list tomorrow, I'm to pissed to
>*think coherently right now. Again, if alot of you don't want to talk
>*about Kant, that's fine!
>*
>
>Please do talk about Kant. Please don't continue to use homosexuality as
>the
>case in point as it has proven to be inflamatory. Maybe genocide would be
>more useful? For example: Very few people seem to have any difficulties
>with
>the prospect of 'ending polio' or smallpox etc if one geneotype is
>considered to be as good as another for raising abstract questions of the
>ethics of extermination - including the possible ethical/moral implications
>of insisting that one genotype is -not- as good as another for that
>purpose?
>(Is the Cistine Chapel Good? Is Ebola Bad? to swipe a pairing from
>something
>I heard on the radio earlier.) Or, perhaps some consideration of the
>possible ahistorical assumptions of some definitions of universality - that
>something could be universal Here, but only for Now? These probably aren't
>very good suggestions, but I felt that I should make an effort to offer
>some
>alternatives since the posts that I read as being pleas to drop the
>homosexuality aspect have been interpreted by some others as pleas to drop
>the Foucault-Kant thread. I may well be the one who's missed the point
This is probably a good idea, as I said above. I really didn't intend
to offend anyone or exclude them, I think that is wrong. I won't bring
up my personal moral beliefs, at least till they are developed. Thank
you for giving me constructive criticism, its good stuff!
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>*thirst and you find water, you drink it you don't worship it, Nathan
>*doesn't understand this either! If I only listen and don't challenge,
>*everyone is just reciting and no one is learning anything new.
>It may be, that to some, you don't appear to be drinking so much as
>insisting "that's not water, it's just a mirage." In other words, issuing
>challenges without accepting them. Maybe that's not "true." But it does
>sometimes seem to be the case.
I see your point, but I am not quite sure how to rectify the situation.
This is the reason: I really am not quite sure of myself philosophically
and so I don't have a truly developed advocacy. I am still developing
thoughts on morality.
>For example... you've said that you believe
>homosexuality is immoral, but then claim that this belief isn't
>exclusionary. For some, such a claim doesn't hold water especially well.
Your right that was a claim I shouldn't have made. I didn't justify it
and it was pretty much an assertion. I either should have developed it
more or not said it at all. I developed the thesis while writing it so
I hoped it would get knocked around some so I could rethink it.
>(Oh, and it's "if you're dying of thirst," no offense, just a pet peeve,
>everyone I know has them.)
Will be more careful in the future :) I was aggitated when I wrote it.
> >I don't want to silence anyone. But this list can only survive if we
>don't
> >have people post 10 e-mails of nonsense per day, and this is something
>that
> >Bryan clearly either doesn't recognize or has too much pride to respect.
>*
>*Everyone I've talked with seems to think its a good thing that there
>*have been more conversations. Again Nathan reveals his revulsion at the
>*mere thought of being challenged and having to learn.
>*
> >Let's stop making people want to unsubscribe.
>
>*
>*There has been one person ask about that the entire time I've been on
>*the list, and I did a search. That guy had never posted before! He
>*just wasn't interested, I make him want to unsubscribe.
>*
>
>Not posting, I'll venture, doesn't mean that one isn't interested. I very,
>very, rarely post, but am quite intersted. But I think the point is that
>the
>use of homosexuality/homophobia as an exemplary case ignores the fact that
>it's inflamatory, ignores the fact that people, some of whom (however small
>the minority) subscribe to this list, are in situations that make it less
>than ideally suitable for 'detached' consideration. No one's really at all
>likely to beat you up for thinking that homosexuality is immoral, possible,
>but not something you have to be concerned about on a day to day basis.
>Perhaps something else could be found that would allow you to continue the
>learning process without so much consternation for those who are less
>interested in these specific issues regarding Foucault's work than you and
>some others are would be appropriate? It would certainly have the virtue of
>avoiding all the distractions from whatever the 'real' issues you're
>interested in are by averting opportunities for the name calling you say
>you
>aren't interested in.
First, that guy hadn't _ever_ posted, not once. I think perhaps he just
wasn't interested or didn't want that many emails.
I hadn't thought of a different topic, I was just responding to the
arguments previously made, but perhaps you have a good idea. Maybe we
could use a different topic to the same ends that wouldn't inspire
the irrational name calling bouts. This is probably a good idea.
>*
>*I can't help it if your a bigot. If your not here to learn then
>*god it go somewhere else! I don't know what the hell your problem is
>*that you had to bring a private matter like your fear of learning out
>*into the forum. Just make an argument or SHUT THE HELL UP!
>*
>
>Would it be at all useful to point out that your personal beliefs about the
>morality of homosexuality are private matters that any number of
>subscribers
>might not want to learn. Or that this doesn't sound very much like an
>argument? Probably not.
Your right, I appologize. But I wish someone had just called it that
way instead of insulting me.
>*
>*I'm sorry to all you who had to read this but Nathan has been pissing
>*me off alot lately and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
>*He brought it here, where it didn't belong, not me. I'll write back
>*to the thinking individuals on this list tomorrow, I'm to pissed to
>*think coherently right now. Again, if alot of you don't want to talk
>*about Kant, that's fine!
>*
>
>Please do talk about Kant. Please don't continue to use homosexuality as
>the
>case in point as it has proven to be inflamatory. Maybe genocide would be
>more useful? For example: Very few people seem to have any difficulties
>with
>the prospect of 'ending polio' or smallpox etc if one geneotype is
>considered to be as good as another for raising abstract questions of the
>ethics of extermination - including the possible ethical/moral implications
>of insisting that one genotype is -not- as good as another for that
>purpose?
>(Is the Cistine Chapel Good? Is Ebola Bad? to swipe a pairing from
>something
>I heard on the radio earlier.) Or, perhaps some consideration of the
>possible ahistorical assumptions of some definitions of universality - that
>something could be universal Here, but only for Now? These probably aren't
>very good suggestions, but I felt that I should make an effort to offer
>some
>alternatives since the posts that I read as being pleas to drop the
>homosexuality aspect have been interpreted by some others as pleas to drop
>the Foucault-Kant thread. I may well be the one who's missed the point
This is probably a good idea, as I said above. I really didn't intend
to offend anyone or exclude them, I think that is wrong. I won't bring
up my personal moral beliefs, at least till they are developed. Thank
you for giving me constructive criticism, its good stuff!
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com