From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 04 2003 - 00:01:14 BST
Hey Johnny,
R
I think that most gays
> >aren't really any more socially progressive than most heterosexuals
are....
> >with the exception of their one personal issue (but hey, everyone has
some
> >issues--- does that makes us all intellectuals?).
J
> If we think about things, yes. Most of us are intellectuals to some
> degree.
R
Agreed.
J
Kaczynski called some people 'over-socialized', in MoQ terms I
> would translate that to "intellectualized" - their social patterns have
been
> overwhelmed by intellectual concepts. it doesn't mean they are smart or
> intelligible, just incapable of directly experiencing social patterns
> without thinking about them first.
R
Well, I'm not familiar with Kaczynski so I can't comment on his terms or how
they might relate to the MoQ. But I don't believe that homosexuals are any
less capable of 'directly experiencing social patterns without thinking
about them first' than heterosexuals are.
> >J
> > I stand by the main point, which is that intellectualism and
> > > homosexuality are related.
> >
> >R
> >Is there a converse relationship between heterosexuality and
> >anti-intellectualism?
J
> Hmm, well, I think the institution of marriage was an intellectual idea,
the
> idea that there is a duty to marry to take care of the other sex and
create
> equality. But it was probably a defensive reaction against intellectual
> ideas that thwarted natural social marriage and love.
R
Marriage was an intellectual idea that was a defensive reaction against
intellectual ideas that thwarted 'natural social marraige'? Huh? What
exactly is "natural social marriage" if marriage is, as you say, an
intellectual pattern?
J
Natural social
> marriage and heterosexuality are not intellectual, but not
> anti-intellectual.
R
How conveinient. Homosexuality makes people intellectual but
heterosexuality is intellectually neutral.
J
> Foucault is one of those "other" philosophers who gets some things right
and
> some things wrong. I've never been able to tell if I agree with him or
not
> as a whole.
R
I agree with him that things like marriage and sexuality are strictly social
contructions that evolved via thousands of years of social conversation. I
think that social conversation continues today. Moreover, I think you're
just trying to make claims that you have a line on an ahistorical notion of
marriage that "has to be" between a man and woman, but we've been over that
ground before.
> >J
> > > Right, except I think now it is heterosexuals who are dying in their
> >wars.
> >
> >R
> >Which wars would these be? Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq or
> >Afghanistan is a part of some "homosexual agenda"? Does that mean that
> >Bush
> >is in on it as well?
J
> Well, yes. Andrew Sullivan is the typical war-booster these days. The
wars
> are crusades against morality, and Bush is in on it because the US and the
> Giant are stengthened, and Bush is a shareholder.
R
George W. Bush is the leader of a vast homosexual agenda to make violent
crusades against morality? Are we talking about the George W. Bush who is
currently the President of the United States?
J
> Yes, arresting someone for a murder comitted in private would seem to
> violate their due process. Murders committed in public are enforcable,
but
> if you do it in private it is legal.
R
How on Earth did you draw that conclusion?
J
Explain to me why it doesn't, without
> bringing up anything biblical, like "thou shalt not kill".
R
An arrest (which is a kind of seizure under the 4th amendment) can only
violate due process if the arresting officer fails to comply with whatever
process is due. If the crime is committed in public, right in front of the
officer, he has immediate probable cause to arrest and the only process that
is due is the reading of Miranda rights and the chance to get a lawyer.
This would apply even if you were in your own home in your own bed and the
officer just happened to see it through the window by happenstance. If the
officer merely suspects you of the 'private crime' and wants to come search
for evidence, the process due is that he'll have to show probable cause to a
judge to get a warrant (in most cases, although exceptions do exist).
Naturally, there's alot more to due process law and the 4th amendment, but I
think you get the idea. Privacy doesn't "legalize" behavior so much as it
just changes what process is due before the government can take certain
actions.
take care
rick
Shall we then judge a country by the majority, or by the minority? By the
minority, surely. - R.W. Emerson
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 23:59:39 BST