Potential rapists

From: mark@bbs.cruzio.com
Keywords: Jesus, rape, allness
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:09:08 GMT

The debate in alt.feminazis about Jesus as a potential rapist
(because "all men are potential rapists") has a distinctly
medieval aroma to it.
What is the difference between a baby and a potential baby?
What is the difference between an egg and a chicken?
What is the difference between a homosexual and a potential homosexual?

Have the Jesuits taken over the Feminist meme
or the Feminists all survivors of Jesuit education?

I am confused. Some of you smart people please explain
these metaphysicl issues to me, Please. Please.

mark@cruzio.com (mark chan)


From: nenslo@teleport.com (NENSLO)
Newsgroups: alt.feminazis,alt.memetics,alt.slack

Delighted to be of assistance.

If the proposition is that "Any state of any member of a group is
a potential state for all members of that group," you can go anywhere with
it. In this case, all men being considered potential rapists because some
men are actual rapists, try unplugging "rapists" and replacing it with
"FABULOUS Drag Queens". Now how do you feel about it? I like it a lot
better and it's just as "real" as the previous statement.
Nevertheless, "potential" is essentially meaningless and the
debate could only be continued by people who fail to recognize the glaring
basic fallacy or who get lost in side issues like whether Jesus was a mere
man or not. How many of us have ever realized even the tiniest fraction of
our potential?

If you don't have time to try to read Korzybski's SCIENCE AND
SANITY, you might try thinking of systems of knowledge and belief as a
rack or unit of shelving containing various objects. In the case to which
we have previously referred, the "shape" of the rack is "Any state of any
member of a group is a potential state for all members of that group," and
Men, Rapists, and Jesus are some of the contents of the rack. As I have
already indicated, a handy way of analyzing the argument is by replacing
some of the contents with other contents which do not provoke such a
strong emotional reaction. If the rack still looks alright when you're
not baing blinded by violent emotional reactions, it can be considered
temporarily valid until it is demonstrated otherwise. Usually, like now,
it ends up looking kind of shaky and goofy.
One of my teachers noted that the soberest and most soundly
reasoned argument will be instantly rendered null if you include a single
term which provokes a strong emotional reaction, asshole. I would like to
point out here that the flimsiest and most absurd contention can be
carried on endlessly if it is composed of such terms.

As ever,


From: nickie@metronet.com ( Rev. Nickie)

Hey! What, do you want to give EVERYTHING away??!?

Back to document index

Original file name: Potential rapists

This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.