sdo@brunix.UUCP (Scott Oaks) (08/08/84)
I simply don't understand much of the recent discussion in this group:
Ken Arndt starts an irrational argument along the following lines: "Defend
yourselves according to the way I have defined a valid moral position".
Sorry, Mr. Arndt, but I'd rather debate the proposition: "Given that the
sky is red, prove that it's not red." Given the premise, both arguments
place me in an indefensible position, despite the fact that each has a
rather absurd premise.
On top of this, Arndt greets every reply with insult and ridicule. Granted
he himself was greeted in several instances with insult and ridicule, but
ignored in the mess were any attempts that were made to point out to Arndt
just how biased and unreasonable his position is. Arndt refuses to give
ground on his premises, accusses us of "not having any answers,"
and ignores any that were presented in favor of baiting us further on the
issue. Sorry again, Mr. Arndt, but your argument was well dealt with, but
if you're going to refuse to deal with the responses with a certain degree of
detachment, I suppose you won't really understand why.
Then along comes Plunkett, who accusses us merely of throwing temper tantrums,
dismisses us as a group as being defensive and petulant (among other equally
bizarre generalizations) and accusses us not merely of trying to find acceptance
but of proselytizing. (Gee, {Mr, Ms} Plunkett, who asked for *your* phone
number?) Then, of course, despite the fact that we shouldn't throw temper
tantrums, we must learn to put up with profanity from others. Gosh, okay--
we'll be good and perfect and quietly take the abuse as it comes.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with Steve Dyer's suggestion concerning what
ought and ought not to be discussed in this newsgroup. But the point comes
when discussion on this topic is no longer fruitful--and that point was
at least reached when the gay members of this group were required to argue
on the grounds of invalid premises if at all, or when attempts to explain
why homosexuality is valid are taken to be acts of proselytizing. Providing
a forum where people might rationally discuss ideas is one thing; providing
a forum for name-calling is quite another. I find it rather odd that the
people who pose questions in this group seem so unwilling to listen to the
answers.
As for questions, Plunkett poses one about public health. Or so he says
that he does; actually he uses this as another attempt to vindicate his
viewpoint. So I will address both: AIDS (oh, my GOD--he said the word)
is not a consequence of being gay; if it were then it would strike lesbians
as well as gay men and it would not strike others who are not gay. And as
an argument against homosexuality, at best it wins a temporary victory--
if that is why it's not ok to be gay, then being gay was okay before its
outbreak and will be again once it is able to be effectively treated.
Sorry, but I can't even grant it that; even though I'm gay I will probably
not contract AIDS but will probably die in an auto accident instead; I guess
that God must therefore hate the automobile because he uses it to draw so
many of us into the arms of Abraham.
There--a logical answer, without the hint of a temper tantrum. Now I guess
I'll just have to wait and see if anyone can understand it.
By the way, does anyone know how Mitch Gaylord made the Olympic team without
blond hair? It seemed to be something of a prerequisite . . .
Scott Oaks Qui nos rodunt confundantur et cum iustis non scribantur.