Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Dammit Dyer
Message-ID: <771@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Jun-84 11:45:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.771
Posted: Fri Jun 22 11:45:48 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Jun-84 03:21:22 EDT
References: <1780@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 53

> I'm not knocken' queers.  (Yet)  All I'm asking is how do you justify to
> yourselves and others your behavior.  Once you say ANYTHING is right or
> wrong you ARE into morals.  You say not to disparage queers as a class.
> Ok.  Why?  The idea (your statement) that the expression of an individual's
> opinion about homosexuality (see I didn't say queer) is morally neutral
> is crap, plain and simple!  

We should give Ken a biscuit for not saying "queer".  (Yes, I'm convinced that
Ken's relationship with his mythical dog is auto-erotic :-)

> Where to start defining what is ok behavior.  Is Hitler ok?  No. Why?  See.

A technique used here repeatedly has been "Is that so?  No.  Why?  What
about X?  See."  Note that the answers to the question, and the reasoning
processes behind them, are ASSUMED to have been made (i.e., in the same way
that the assumer did).  Is Hitler OK?  No.  Why?  (and now:  substance)
Because (see..) Hitler advocated a systematic ideology proposing interference
in the rights of other people to live their lives.  One person's rights end
where they interfere with another person's rights to live his/her lif as
he/she chooses.  See how simple morals can be if they're based on logic and
consideration for others.

> Most people think queers are not ok.  See.  

Most people think Ken Arndt is not OK.  See?  By Ken's own "moral" system
(quotes very important there), we should prevent him from existing.
Fortunately for him (and perhaps unfortunately for us) we have a more elegant
moral system.

> I think you are your own worse enemy.  You scare the daylights out of the
> straights and get them angry.  The blacks could appeal to an inate sense
> of right and fair play.  The moral tradition of the Western World (despite
> the writing of that practical joker from Yale) has been against queers.
> The reason, the appeal that changed the lives of blacks in the last hundred
> years or so was a MORAL one.  Homosexuals have no such moral leg to stand on.
> You are now being perceived as a threat to society now, I believe, because of
> your growing (strike a now) voice in society.  YOUR REPLY HAS TO BE COUCHED
> IN A MORAL ARGUMENT, I BELIEVE.  That's what I'm asking for.  Not your
> experience or "I feel" but something to match the moral tradition of the
> West.  I think Boop de doop from Yale saw that but did a poor job.

For Ken, as with many Christians and other Western moral thinkers (Ken, a
thinker? :-) , the tradition of Western morality is more important than
providing for the needs of all the individuals in a society.  (Who is this
joker you refer to?  Do you think everybody knows who you're talking about,
and holds the same opinions besides?)

What does it mean to "scare the daylights out of the straights"?  If "the
straights" are scared by misinformation, just provide the right information.
(Difficult to do when bigotry is a part of one's morality.)
-- 
"Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while."
"Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!"			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr