|Linz, When I pointed out you are the only person anywhere on solo ever to say, "either man is volitional or not" means that man has volitional control over *every* aspect of his being," even though you attributed it to the unidentified, "other side," I explained what the "other side" does say is this: everything a human being does is by conscious choice. |
I explained that assuming you either misunderstood something I said, or didn't read it correctly. I know there is another possibility, but I will certainly not make that all too obvious accusation. I think you are mistaken, but not dishonest.
I then asked, to be sure I understood what your point was, "Linz, are some of things you do not by choice?"
To that you made the amazing remark: "This is precisely why I now view this writer as dishonest."
You say something which is blatantly untrue about me, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. I ask you a simple question, which implies nothing at all, and you call me dishonest.
Then you say, like God himself, reading my mind and stating with arbitrary finality, "He knows the argument is not about the *actions* of a gay person, but the orientation itself, which, I repeat, is *not* open to choice."
But I know no such thing at all. My whole argument is that a person's, "orientation," or "inclination," to do or be anything (a thief, a nymphomaniac, a pedophile, a homosexual) is irrelevant. Only what one chooses matters. It is only one's actual actions, in thought and deed that has any part of defining who and what an individual is. A person tempted to steal is not a thief unless he yields to the temptation (his orientation) and actually steals.
Then you said, "A gay person *could* act as Regi would wish ...," once again, reading into my mind what is not there, but is certainly in yours, because you wrote it. The only "wish" I have for all men is that they be free to live their lives any way they choose without the interference of any other man. I have never suggested I wish gays would act in any particular way, except in the general sense that I wish all men would, for their own sakes, refrain from self-destructive behavior, without regard to which behavior that would be.
If you can find anywhere, on SOLO, in my book, or anyplace else where I ever said or suggested anyone, ever, should, "live a life of abstinence or pretend-heterosexuality," I will will apologize for it and repudiate it here and now. If you cannot show me that, I will be severely tempted to change my mind about that benefit of the doubt I am still extending you.
"... such self-denial or fraud would be entirely consistent with Regi's intrinsicist/mystic view of morality," you said. If you want to cover up a fault, the quickest way to do it is to accuse your opponent of that fault, whether it is true or not. But, of course I know you would not do that, would you?
You certainly aren't calling my insistence that human beings have a specific nature that determines what is good and bad for us, like a specific kind of stomach that precludes poison being a good thing to eat "intrinsicist," are you? You wouldn't be labeling my insistence that one use the best reason of which they are capable when choosing their values and how they choose to live their life "mystic," would you?
What would you call a view that says what a person is, is determined by some mysterious unknown something; that a person is not, as Ayn Rand said, "a being of self-made soul," but a creature whose identity is determined by genes and environmental influences or something else? That would not be intrinsicist would it?
And what do you call the view that says one has knowledge that is not derived objectively by reason, but is, "just there?" You wouldn't call that a priorism? And what do you call the view that says there is knowledge that does not require the mind? You wouldn't call the mysticism? I call the view, that says "the body (the "heart," "electricity," "sexual chemistry" etc.) has reasons the mind knows not of," the grossest of subjectivist mysticism, on the basis of which any outrage may be justified, and apparently is.
Now, all this is based on how I understood what you said, and I confess I may have misunderstood it. It is difficult to understand something so shrill.
Oh yes, please do not worry about, "...to be polite to that entity from now on. I'm through with it." I doubt if I or anyone else will notice any difference.
(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 9/19, 10:38am)