Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"

Zloduska (
Thu, 27 May 1999 18:11:40 -0500

Thank you, Andreas, for saving me lots of time. Only a couple small points I 'd like to make...

Andreas wrote:

>>(as you say, you will reject all definitions of morality with a force of
>No, he rejects all attempts from you to define what he should consider a
>part of his own private morality. And so do I. I don't think anyone here
>rejects an attempt to define the semantic meaning of the *term* morality.

  1. I am an immoral woman without morals! muhaha.

>>Defining "morality" as "right action" doesn't place me in a position to
>>judge what is right and wrong-- *truth* judges what is right and wrong
>>(as in, it is right for a ball to roll downhill/ such that, an "immoral"
>>ball is one which uses force to do what is un-natural... ie. roll
>That's not *truth*. _If_ it's possible for a ball to roll uphill, it's not
>*truth* that all balls roll downhill. Neither is it necessarily *truth*
>that it should be immoral for a ball to roll uphill. The owerwhelming
>majority of mammals are quadrupedal, you (presumably, unless you always
>crawl) use force to stand up and walk on two legs. Is that immoral?

2) Brett goes on to say that it is not his morality that decides what is right or wrong, but "Truth". Once again, this Pure Wank(tm) because who decides what truth is? You! It doesn't matter how many channels and mediums your doctrines, condemnations, and taboos arrive though, it is still biases, subjective morality. We all have our own personal truth, and to say that morality is dictated by some truth, which you could not possibly know or see, save through your own version of truth is nonsense. Furthermore, declaring that an act is "unnatural" has been a weak excuse used for AGES to oppress and judge others who are somehow "different".

>Morality shouldn't be based on statistics of what's "normal". It should be
>based on allowing the most freedom possible to everyone, while minimizing
>to everyone, roughly speaking. It's not *true* in any way, it's defined to
>be what it is. All talk of "absolute morals" and things that are always
>or always right, in all times, in all circumstances, because of some kind of
>"built-in" morality of the universe, is in my opinion complete bollocks.

The more that's written about abstract subjects on this list, the higher the bollocks-content, I've found.

>>My family were middle to upper class citizens who were monogamous, hard
>>working, self-sacrificing, productive, and creative. They didn't
>>instill in me the need to excuse behavior which is self-destructive.

We are all self-destructive, to a certain point.


postscript: I'll be taking an indeterminate-length vacation from CoV, until I regain net-access. Don't ya'll start any discussions about androgyny or Oprah without me, ya hear?