Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Annotating Annotated Annotators Message-ID: <1052@qubix.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Apr-84 11:17:14 EDT Article-I.D.: qubix.1052 Posted: Mon Apr 30 11:17:14 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 2-May-84 04:26:56 EDT Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA Lines: 99 I have never stated that all pleasure is perversion [OK, BICKFORD, NO MORE CYCLING TRIPS INTO THE MOUNTAINS!]. I will state, however, that the HM declaration removes all restrictions on forms of pleasure - even those that would be disgusting by *others'* standards. Rich Rosen repeated the oft-stated "rights end where imposition on another person begins." That would, of course, depend on what the basis for "rights" is. (I've been a bit disappointed in the small response to my survey.) Also, is it an "imposition on another person" to keep a 3- year-old from his favorite pastime of watching the big trucks in action close-up? [Side note: God has been getting a lot of bad press as being a killjoy, someone who deprives us of the "right" to enjoy certain pleasures. Since Rich constantly harps about rationality, permit me to ask: how are you so sure you have all the facts for your "rational" decision? God knows a lot of things you aren't able to understand, even as you know things that 3-year-old doesn't.] >cornell!gtaylor: "The attack on the Humanist Manifesto is not unlike >another tactic I cannot help but notice: that of choosing either a >poorly articulated or extreme point of view ...." The original author stated his full agreement with both Humanist Manifestos, with such notable signers as John Dewey, Charles Francis Potter, Isaac Asimov (II, maybe not I), and others, so it can't be THAT poorly written. As for "the big lie again: against free enterprise, for communism, ...", thus saith HM I, Tenet 14: "The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world." I don't know if Marx (not Groucho) could have written it any better. I stand with my earlier statement. More opus!rcd: >Anyone who has retained a sixth-grade knowledge of even basic science >knows that science neither has, nor claims to have, all the answers. They sure seem pretty settled on evolution as a FACT. > "Any constructive nontrivial logical system requires some postulates"? > Is that it? Exactly. Humanism hides its. >>Either that, or you've got a *very* short-sighted definition of "harm." >...or, more likely, Larry Bickford has an *extremely* short-sighted, > pessimistic view or humans. Reality consumes 47 times its weight in religion, and it has taught me two things: Left to their own, people will do mischief. Witness Montreal when the city police went on strike. There is often a connection between actions and thoughts today and those several years down the road - but this is only brought up when man wants to escape his own guilt. I am not opposed to freedom or a workable democracy. (Did it ever occur to you that the U.S.of A is not, nor ever has been, a democracy, but rather a representative republic? Go study civics again.) But freedom without protection is anarchy; I would rather have a totalitarian system (even if I were in the minority) than that. Ken Almquist dealt with some other points: >...humanism does not believe ... that future happiness is incompatible >with present happiness. No, it just tries to evade reality's second lesson. >If "I conflict with you satisfaction," that does not mean that it is >all right for you to kill me. Killing me might lead to a satisfactory >life for you (although I suspect that many humanists would disagree), >but it would probably not lead to a satisfactory life for *me*, and I am >part of the "all" above. Tell that to all the aborted children. Tell that to Infant Doe. According to the New York Court of Appeals, the legislature has the power to define you as not 'part of the "all" above.' It is said I have shown my true colors. Rather, more like Romans 7:7-14 - I had to show someone else's colors. The "libelous venomous lies" that Rich talks about must be those he sees in the mirror (yes, Rich, I *have* looked in one recently). Humanism uses a lot of language that sounds fine - until someone comes along and sees it for what it is. And if I see danger, it is no less cruel to proclaim the danger than it is to tell you that your house is burning down. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA