Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!spenser From: spenser@ficc.uu.net (Spenser Aden) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: news.groups Message-ID: <+KQ16Q4ccs@ficc.uu.net> Date: 13 Feb 90 15:23:38 GMT References: <34245@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2125@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Reply-To: spenser@ficc.uu.net (Spenser Aden) Organization: Ferranti, SCADA Trending Subsystem Lines: 41 In article <2125@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <34245@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> goldfarb@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) writes: > >| Someone suggested that the topic be broadened to include all discussions of >| conflicting value systems. Shortly thereafter all discussion ceased. I think >| that it's an excellent suggestion, and I intend to try to run a vote on >| talk.morality as soon as the requisite 14 day period has ended -- i.e. this >| Thursday. ("Try", because mail to the cluster I'm on tends to be somewhat >| flaky.) > > What you propose and what was originally proposed are two different >things. The original idea was a group for the discussion for the legal >AND moral issues of homosexuals. While this is an admirable idea, it is also asking for potential trouble. Frequently, regarding hotly debated topics such as homsexuality, what is legal certainly does *NOT* constitute what is ethical, moral, or right. To try and hold discussions that will incorporate BOTH, and keep it civilized, will be quite a chore. Those who don't care what the law says, but care deeply about the morality of the issue, will need to refrain from emotional flames against those who believe the law is the most important, regardless of what else they might think, in order to keep the discussion civil. And vice versa too. Worthwhile discussion, IMHO, will require even more restraint from flamage than is evident in the postings to news.groups today. My money is on that not happening, as is the tendency of the net. > What you propose should be called >"ethics" rather than "morality" I suspect. I didn't follow the original thread, but to pick a small nit, "ethics" and "morality" are essentially the same thing. The law is certainly another, though an argument could be made that that shoudln't be the case (though I would argue that it is). BTW, none of what I've said is intended to thwart or promote the creation of talk.morality, but are simply observations to be considered. -Spenser -- S. Spenser Aden | This may have been a test of the emergency Ferranti International Controls | flame-throwing system. Had this been an spenser@ficc.uu.net | actual flame, you would have been instructed Only my opinions, not Ferranti's.| where to follow-up. This was only a test.